§ 24. ZWDSTGLI'S CONFLICT WITH RADICALISM. 75
and faith, baptized converts, organized congregations, and exercised rigid discipline. They called themselves simply "brethren" or "Christians." They were earnest and zealous, self-denying and heroic, but restless and impatient. They accepted the New Testament as their only rule of faith and practice, and so far agreed with the Reformers, but utterly broke with the Catholic tradition, and rejected Luther's theory of forensic, solifidian justification, and the real presence. They emphasized the necessity of good works, and deemed it possible to keep the law and to reach perfection. They were orthodox in most articles of the common Christian faith, except Htitzer and Denck, who doubted the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
The first and chief aim of the Radicals was not (as is usually stated) the opposition to infant baptism, still less to sprinkling or pouring, but the establishment of a pure church of converts in opposition to the mixed church of the world. The rejection of infant baptism followed as a necessary consequence. They were not satisfied with separation from popery ; they wanted a separation from all the ungodly. They appealed to the example of the disciples in Jerusalem, who left the synagogue and the world, gathered in an upper room, sold their goods, and held all things in common. They hoped at first to carry Zwingli with them, but in vain ; and then they charged him with treason to the truth, and hated him worse than the pope.
Zwingli could not follow the Anabaptists without bringing the Reformation into discredit with the lovers of order, and rousing the opposition of the government and the great mass of the people. He opposed them, as Augustin opposed the schismatical Donatists. He urged moderation and patience. The Apostles, he said, separated only from the open enemies of the gospel, and from the works of darkness, but bore with the weak brethren. Separation would not cure the evils of the Church. There are many honest people
76 THE SWISS REFORMATION.
who, though weak and sick, belong to the sheepfold of Christ, and would be offended at a separation. He appealed to the word of Christ, "He that is not against me, is for me," and to the parable of the tares and the wheat. If all the tares were to be rooted up now, there would be nothing left for the angels to do on the day of final separation.
§ 25. The Baptismal Controversy.
The opposition to the mixed state-church or popular church, which embraced all the baptized, legitimately led to the rejection of infant baptism. A new church required a new baptism.
This became now the burning question. The Radicals could find no trace of infant baptism in the Bible, and denounced it as an invention of the pope ^ and the devil. Baptism, they reasoned, presupposes instruction, faith, and conversion, which is impossible in the case of infants.^ Voluntary baptism of adult and responsible converts is, therefore, the only valid baptism. They denied that baptism is necessary for salvation, and maintained that infants are or may be saved by the blood of Christ without water-baptism. -^ But baptism is necessary for church membership as a sign and seal of conversion.
From this conception of baptism followed as a further consequence the rebaptism of those converts who wished to unite with the new church. Hence the name Anabaptists or Rehaptizers QWiedertdufer'), which originated with the
1 They derived it from Pope Nicolas II. (a.d. 1059-'61), whose pontificate was entirely under the control of Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory VII. The reference shows the prevailing ignorance of Church history. Pedobaptism is much older than the papacy.
2 Hiibmaier, when in Waldshut, substituted first a simple benediction of children, in place of baptism, but baptized when the parents wished it. See Gieseler, III. A. p. 210, note.
3 The Augsburg Confession (Art. IX.) condemns the Anabaptists for teaching " pueros sine baptismo salvos fieri."