the eternal, blessed life, because of the uprightness of her faith,
chose to die a lingering death rather than enjoy the temporal rest and
pleasure of this life; wherefore the gracious God shall hereafter crown
and reward her, with all those that have valiantly suffered and fought
for his name’s sake, with the unfading crown of honor. (1 Peter 1:4.)
_Tract, Jer. Mang., fol. 16, A. B., and fol. 17, A., etc._
NOTE.--The property of Jacob Hess was seized by the authorities, who
realized from the sale of it 4000 guilders, without restoring anything
of it to those who remained. O great injustice! How will they be able
to account for this before the righteous judgment seat of Jesus Christ?
OF A CERTAIN MANIFESTO, EMITTED BY THOSE OF ZURICH, A. D. 1639, IN
EXCUSE OF THE PERSECUTION RAISED; AND OF THE ANSWER WHICH FOLLOWED FROM
THE PERSECUTED AS A REFUTATION.
Now when it happened that in consequence of the foregoing evil
treatment instituted against the Swiss Anabaptists, those who had
commenced this, drew down upon themselves, even from the common world,
much opposition, criticism, and reproach, the rulers of the country,
and especially of the city of Zurich, as having been the principal ones
in said ungodly work of persecution, caused, A. D. 1639, a manifesto,
apology, or defense (so called) to be published, in excuse and
vindication as it were, of what they had already done and brought about
against said Anabaptists.
But as this in many respects, was not according to the truth, but,
from partisanship, contrary to the truth, many of the Swiss brethren
who were still out of bonds, yet in the same persecution, defended
themselves with regard to it, with all proper courtesy in a Christian
and discreet manner. We could produce here their answer entire and with
all the circumstances, since we have received it correct; but as this
would take up too much room, and unduly increase this work, we shall
note only some of the most important portions from it.
In regard to the first accusation laid to their charge in the aforesaid
manifesto, by the lords of Zurich, namely, that they had separated
themselves from the obedience which they owed to the Christian church;
they make this reply:
“Herein, right in the beginning; great wrong and injustice is done
us; for we desire in no wise to separate ourselves from the Christian
church, but seek to adhere to the same and the pure word of God,
yea, to sacrifice our bodies, property and blood therefor; but
the reason that we cannot unite with their (namely, the so called
Reformed) church, is, that her doctrine in many respects is not like
the ancient, pure, apostolical doctrine, nor does it agree with the
words and commandments of Christ; and that we, through God’s gracious
illumination, have before us a better way, namely, the true apostolical
foundation, to which, by the help of God, we will also adhere.
“But that nevertheless not we, but the principal learned men, and some
of their own number, are those who, having in the beginning of the
change held the right views with us, touching baptism, the Supper,
excommunication, and resistance or revenge, afterwards again turned
away from it shall clearly appear, when we shall rightly examine their
first teachings and writings of a hundred years or more ago.”
_Hereupon it is stated in the same answer, what teachers in the
beginning of the Reformation taught the aforementioned articles aright,
from which they subsequently, and especially their descendants, again
departed; which appears from these words_:
Firstly, as regards baptism, this is declared by the conference of
Zwingli and Balthazar Hubmor, held A. D. 1523, at Zurich, in the Graef;
where Zwingli publicly confessed: “That infants are not to be baptized
before they grow up and attain to a reasonable age.” He also promised
that he should make mention of it in his Book of Articles; as he also
did, in the eighteenth article respecting Confirmation, where he says:
“That in former times it was not common to baptize children; but
that they were publicly instructed together with the rest; who
afterwards, when they had attained to their understanding, were called
_catechumeni_, that is, instructed ones in the word,[357] whereupon,
when the faith was thus firmly implanted in the heart, and they had
confessed it with the mouth, they were “baptized.”
[357] In the word of salvation, etc., it says: In the tract the order
of the words is a little different, according to the Swiss style;
however, the sense of the same is clearly expressed here.
This practice of the doctrine, he said, he wished to see readopted in
this our time.
Thus also confessed his colleague, Oecolampadius in a letter to the
aforementioned Hubmor, saying: “We have up to the present day not met
with any passages in the holy Scriptures, that cause us to confess the
baptism of infants, as far as we in our littleness can see.” In like
manner, on the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, treating on
the word, _Anignoratis_, he writes: “That every Christian shall first
confess Christ, and then be baptized with the external baptism (of
water).”
So also writes Sebastian Hofmeyster, preacher at Schaffhausen, to said
Hubmor: “We have publicly confessed before the council at Schaffhausen:
That if our brother Zwingli in any wise insists (contrary to his
previous opinion), that children are to be baptized, he herein greatly
misses the mark, and does not according to the truth of the holy
gospel.”
Continuing, he writes: “Truly, I did not allow myself to be compelled
that I should baptize my child, who is named Zacharias, hence you also
act in a Christian manner, that you bring to light again the true
baptism of Christ: which has long been neglected or kept down. We will
also undertake to do this.”
Christopher Hogendorf, on the third chapter of the first Epistle of
Peter, writes: “You have heard, that faith is put before baptism; hence
it is not mere baptism, but also the faith of baptism, which saves us.”
In like manner, Cellarius writes to the aforementioned Hubmor, as
follows: “Since you desire that I shall declare to you my judgment
concerning baptism and the Lord’s Supper, I will heartily and briefly
comply with your request:
“In the first place it is an abomination in the eyes of God, that
little children are baptized; which baptism is declared neither in the
holy Scriptures, nor in the examples of the holy apostles; and there
testify against it also God’s judgments, which manifest themselves in
the division of the created things; for in the beginning the earth was
without form and void.”
The preachers at Strasburg: Wolfgang Capito, Cestor Hedio, Matthew
Zell, Symphonas Polio, Theobald Niger, John Latonius, Anthony Firn,
Martin Hatk, and Martin Bucer, in their book, entitled, _Ground and
Reasons, fol._ 1, write: “That in the beginning of the church no one
was baptized nor received into the holy Christian church, except those
who had entirely submitted to the word of Christ.”
Their ground and reason for such belief, they show from the holy
Scriptures, namely, that they confess, that the beginning (before) of
our Christian life is sin, and that therefore John the Baptist, Christ,
and the apostles always began by saying: “Repent, etc.” Again: “In the
congregation of God confession of sins has ever and always been first,
which, with the ancients, preceded baptism, for usually adults, and not
children, were baptized.”
_Fol._ 2 and 3, as also further on, they write: “That without the
baptism of the Holy Spirit the water and (its) baptism are but a hocus
pocus.”
Concerning the article of War or Retaliation. In like manner, some
of the foremost Lutherans (who in the beginning were one with the
Calvanistic Reformed), and of the Zwinglians, believed with us: That it
does not behoove a Christian to war, or offer resistance. Among them we
will first adduce Andrew Carlstadt, who, in a little book treating on
whether men should forgive sufferings and offenses, printed at Zurich,
A. D. 1524, writes as follows concerning resistance:
“We shall not be misled by the objection made: War is a punishment of
God; hence there must certainly always be one who wages war against
another.” Again: “They warred in the Old Testament.”
In reply to the first he writes: “Hear on the other hand, what Christ
says (Matt. 18:7): ‘It must needs be that offenses come; but woe to
that man by whom the offense cometh!’ Hence some merit the disfavor of
God, so that he punishes and torments them with war, but woe to him
that wages war against them; for he (namely, God) punishes the evil
with the evil.”
Reply to the second: “The children of Israel waged war, either against
sinful nations that would not allow them to go into the promised land,
or against those, who, when they were in it, did not leave them in
peace, and all this was a figure of the spiritual war, which we must
now wage in Christ, as regenerated and new men, against all vice and
unbelief.”
Immediately after that he proceeds and writes: “They also bring against
us this objection: That we must compel by force of arms those that will
not allow that which is right.”
_Answer_: If we are to speak in a right and Christian manner of the
matter, war in no wise becomes us; we ought, according to the teachings
of Christ, to pray for those who say all manner of evil against us,
and count us fools; yea, if they smite us on one cheek, to offer them
the other also; then shall we be children of the Most High.” Thus far,
Carlstadt.
From Carlstadt the writer goes on to Luther, saying: “In a little
book, printed at Wittenberg, in the year, 1520, Luther states why
he burnt the pope’s books. The twenty-second article thereof reads
thus: ‘Because he teaches, that it is right for a Christian to defend
himself with violence against violence; contrary to the words of Christ
(Matthew 5:40): “If any man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak
also.”’
In another book, also printed at Wittenberg, in the year 1522, there
are found among other articles (which one Sorbona had extracted as
heretical from Luther’s books) also these: “That he (namely, Luther)
had taught concerning the words of Christ (Matt. 5:39): ‘Whosoever
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also;’ and
again, (Rom. 12:19): Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,’ that these
words are not advices” that is, which one may, or may not do “as many
theologians erroneously teach, but that they are commandments” that is,
things which must be observed.
Again: “Christians are forbidden to sue for their rights at the law.”
Again: “Since a Christian may not place his affections upon temporal
things, he may also not swear an oath because of them.”
In short: “We find that Luther for a considerable time was with
mouth and hand opposed to resistance, till he was finally seduced to
another belief, by the Jesuits even as _Sleydanus, lib. 8, fol. 561_,
testifies.” See the oldest edition.
A few pages further on the writer comes to speak of Pomeranus,
Brentius, and divers others, who, about the years 1520, 1530, 1540, and
subsequently, undertook the work of the Reformation from Popery, and
also became effectual instruments in that direction; who nevertheless
at that time taught not only against retaliation upon enemies, but
also, besides infant baptism, the swearing of oaths, and other articles
which are not founded in the holy gospel of Jesus Christ; and, on the
other hand, taught and defended such things as are founded therein,
and are still at the present day taught by the Anabaptists; though
some of the aforementioned reformers themselves, and especially their
descendants, for the most part, again departed therefrom.
These and similar matters were, in said reply of the persecuted
Anabaptists in Switzerland, given for examination to the lords of
Zurich, and to those who had drawn up the aforementioned manifesto
in excuse of the persecution raised; as clearly showing that not the
Anabaptists, but they themselves, had departed from the principles of
the Reformation; that consequently not the Anabaptists, who had adhered
to their principles, but the apostate reformed themselves, were to
blame in this matter. Hence, that the authors of said manifesto had
done wrong in charging the aforesaid Anabaptists with having separated
themselves from the obedience which they owed to the true Christian
Church, only because they would not go to church with them, who are
called Reformed, nor receive their religion contrary to their souls and
consciences.
Besides this point of disobedience toward the church, the Swiss
brethren were also charged in the aforesaid manifesto, that they were
also disobedient to the political authorities, etc. But hereupon
they, in said answer, roundly declared: That this was unjustly said
of them, yea, that they were willing and entirely ready to obey their
authorities in all just matters, to pray for them, to pay them due
tribute, honor and fear, and, though they should suffer wrong from
them, in no wise to avenge it: but willingly and patiently to bear it
for the Lord’s sake.
These were about the principal points that were mentioned in the
manifesto, and refuted by the persecuted brethren; the other matters
are of small importance, and hence not necessary to be adduced here.
But they nevertheless proceeded with the persecution, and granted no
mitigation, as will be seen from the following accounts:
WERNER PHISTER AND HIS SON’S WIFE, IN THE YEAR 1640.
The progress of the years brought no cessation of the persecution,
nor could aught of what was adduced by way of excuse avail anything.
This was clearly evident, for the year 1640 had scarcely come when the
Wadischwyl district began again to resound with persecution, insomuch
that the servants of the authorities there assailed, with dreadful
raging and storming, like howling wolves and bears, the house of an old
and pious minister of the church named Werner Phister, beat doors and
windows and all that was attached to it in pieces, and apprehended him
and his wife, as also his son’s wife, and brought them to Zurich, where
they were imprisoned in the place Othenbach.
In the meantime the old man’s wife by a certain accident escaped; but
the pious old minister himself, as also his son’s wife, when they would
in no wise apostatize from their faith, nor go to the common church,
had to forfeit their lives, insomuch that they were suffered miserably
to die through want, poverty and hardships. But hereafter they shall
no more hunger or thirst, nor be assailed by suffering or death; when
the Lord, according to his promise shall reward and crown them with the
eternal and blessed life. _Tract, Jer. Mang., fol. 14. B, compared with
Tract, M. Meyli., dated 1651, fol. 6, number 2._
NOTE.--We previously, for the year 1637, made mention, in the margin,
of a brother named Peter Brubach, who being then imprisoned with two
other of our fellow believers, finally was released. The same was
now, A. D. 1640, cruelly persecuted; insomuch that on the 6th of May
his house was demolished, his male and female servants sent away,
the children driven out of the house, his house, homestead, woodland
and fields, movables and immovables, yea, everything taken; a part
of which was put into Othenbach, and the other part sold, from which
9000 rix-dollars was realized, which the authorities seized. Not
long afterwards the three little sons of this man were imprisoned in
Othenbach, where they miserably wasted, etc. _Tract, Jer. Mang.; edit.
1645._
GALLUS SCHNEIDER, A. D. 1640.
A very old man named Gallus Schneider, from the Seignioralty
Wadischwyl, was also apprehended in the year 1640, brought to Zurich,
and there imprisoned in the convent dungeon (Othenbach).
He was kept in irons sixteen weeks, and very harshly treated, until he
finally, when his faith had been sufficiently tried, and been found
immovable, died in his bonds, having committed his soul unto God, from
whom he had received it. Compare _Jer. Mang. Tract, fol. 15, B., with
Tract, M. Meyli, fol. 7, A., num. 7_.
NOTE.--About this time, an old sister from Horgerberg, named Verena
Albi, was also imprisoned, but subsequently, through a certain means,
delivered out of bonds, but must still keep herself concealed. _Tract,
Mang., and Meyli._
RUDOLPH BACHMAN, A. D. 1640.
Even as youth on account of the bloom of their life was not spared, so
also not the least compassion was had upon old age and declining years;
yea, not even upon such as were very feeble and infirm according to the
body.
Among these was Rudolph Bachman, from the Wadischwyl district, who was
apprehended in the year 1640, and as he on account of his great age,
weakness and infirmity, according to the flesh, was not able to walk,
he was put on a sled, and thus conveyed from his house to the prison,
which was a great distance off.
Afterwards he was placed in chains for a time, in the nearest hospital,
and, because of the steadfastness of his faith, not loosed therefrom
till he died.
But for this he shall hereafter, being freed from the eternal bonds of
darkness, be admitted into the liberty of God’s saved children; on the
other hand: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity.”
Rev. 13:10.
Then it shall be seen, what difference there will be between God’s
true servants, and those that have afflicted them; for every one shall
receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done,
whether it be good or bad. 2 Cor. 5:10. Compared with _Tract, M. Meyli,
dated 1658, fol. 6, B., num. 3_, _etc._
NOTE.--Now, in the year 1640, there was also apprehended Henry
Schnebbi, from the Seignioralty Knonow, a God-fearing brother, who was
cast into prison with a number of criminals at Zurich, at whose hands
he met with much ill-treatment; however, he was finally released.
_Tract, Jer. M._, _etc._
In the year 1641, Hans Rudolf Bauman, a very God-fearing man, and a
minister of the Church of Jesus Christ at the Horgerberg, was also
taken to Zurich, and there confined in the convent prison, where he was
very closely kept for over sixty weeks, and for a considerable time fed
on bread and water, and put into iron bonds; in consequence of which he
fell into a severe sickness.
In the meantime, on a certain Good Friday, through the aid of some of
his imprisoned fellow brethren he escaped, but as he on account of
his sickness, was not able either to walk or to stand, he was taken
up and carried for a considerable distance, so that he escaped the
persecutors’ hands.
Thereupon his house and homestead were sold, and wife and children
driven therefrom. From the sale was realized 3000 guilders, which the
authorities seized and kept for themselves. But the Lord shall render
unto every man according to his righteousness, and according to his
faithfulness. 1 Samuel 26:23. Compared with _Tract, Jer. Mang., fol.
12, A._, _etc._
ULRICH MULLER, A. D. 1640.
On the 31st of August of the year 1640, there was apprehended Ulrich
Muller, a minister of the word of God, in the county of Kiberg.
He was taken from there to Zurich, where he was confined in the council
house, and a few days afterwards imprisoned in the convent dungeon at
Othenbach.
Here they treated him most unmercifully for thirty-five weeks, so that
he completely wasted away, and, adhering to his faith, fell asleep in
his bonds in great steadfastness.
After his death his children had to pay a fine of 100 guilders to the
authorities on account of their father, who had, as it was thought,
died as a heretic. Compare both tracts, that of _Mangold_ is well as
that of _Meyli_, on the name Ulrich.
NOTE.--At this time, A. D. 1640, there was also apprehended Oswald
Landis, with his wife and two of his daughters-in-law, all of whom were
imprisoned in the convent Othenbach; Jacob Landis, the son of Oswald,
as also his entire family, were exiled into misery.
In the meantime the two imprisoned daughters-in-law, who had nursing
infants, escaped out of prison by night; in which subsequently also the
old man and his wife succeeded, but they had lost all their property,
in consequence of which they had to roam about in poverty. _Tract, Jer.
M._
In the following year, 1641, they again apprehended divers pious
Christians residing in the Seignioralty of Knonow; among whom are
mentioned by name, Henry Fricken, and also Hans Ring and his wife.
Henry Fricken was confined in the council house of the city of Zurich,
and so unmercifully treated, that he weakened in his purpose, and
consented also to go to the common church, which was what they desired;
whereupon he was released. But when he considered what he had done, and
how he had done violence to his conscience, wronged his soul, and given
offense to the Church of God, he fell into great distress, confessed
his fall, and, with Peter, bitterly wept over his sin, and in order
that his persecutors should no more rejoice over his apostasy, he went
back to Zurich, into the council house, to be confined in the place
whence he had been released, which was done.
In the meantime, by the order of the authorities, his two large farms
were rented for 420 guilders and twenty quarters of corn annually;
and in money and notes they took from him over 13,000 guilders; after
which he was released, but again apprehended, out of which bonds he
again escaped, but was afterwards, as before, sorely persecuted, while
wandering about in misery and poverty.
Hans Ring also had to go to Zurich into the council house, and was then
imprisoned in Othenbach, and closely guarded. He was conducted into the
torture chamber, and twice stripped, near the rack, but yet finally,
unweakened in his faith, escaped the tyrants’ hands.
The wife of this Hans Ring, four days after having been confined, and
being yet very sick, was unexpectedly so assailed and distressed by the
magistrates’ beadles, with furious raging and cursing, that she, in the
attempt to save herself as it seems, unexpectedly fell into a gutter,
where she could not be found or helped out for the time being; but
afterwards, having been found, she was there fastened to a chain, and
the people in the house commanded with severe threats, not to let her
leave the house.
Finally, however, through the aid of some of her friends, she escaped
by night, and, being very weak yet, was carried into another region.
Compare _Tract, Mang._ with _Tract, Meyli_, on the names above referred
to.
OF A CERTAIN SUPPLICATION ADDRESSED AND DELIVERED BY THOSE OF
AMSTERDAM, IN FEBRUARY, 1642, TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ZURICH, FOR
MITIGATION OF THE PERSECUTION RAISED; AND OF THE ANSWER WHICH, IN JUNE
OF THE SAME YEAR, FOLLOWED THEREUPON, BY THOSE OF ZURICH.
The laudable magistrates of the city of Amsterdam, in Holland, having
an aversion to the proceedings of their fellow-associates at Zurich,
on the 20th of February 1642, through the urgent request of the
Anabaptists, at Amsterdam, with regard to the distress of the Swiss
brethren, sent an humble supplication to the burgomasters and the
council of the city of Zurich, in order, if possible, to obtain some
mitigation of the persecution commenced against the Anabaptists there.
This supplication having safely and properly arrived and been delivered
there, could nevertheless obtain nothing in this direction, save only
an unfriendly and irritating reply; which was drawn up by them on the
18th of June, of the same year, and sent to the good magistrates of
Amsterdam, and consequently also to the Anabaptists there, accompanied
by three of their previously emitted manifestoes of the year 1639,
wherein, as we have noticed for said year, nothing but reproach and
contumely (though without cause) was heaped upon said persecuted people.
We could here adduce this letter of the Zurich lords, as we have a
correct copy of it; but as it contains nothing but unkindness and
acrimony, without the least justice or information, and the following
work sufficiently declares from what spirit it proceeded, we deem it
unnecessary and unworthy, to accord it a place here; without, however,
despising said lords, since we are commanded to love even our enemies,
and to pray for them that persecute us. Matt. 5:44.
FELIX LANDIS, WITH HIS WIFE ADELHEID EGLI, ABOUT A. D. 1642.