then have none. Its benefits are also enumerated[1]. "It is the same as Circumcision; that dedicated men to God, but under the yoke and band of the law; Baptism, to the same God, but under Christ, who is grace itself." The rest are, 1. "that we all grow up in the same doctrine, the Christian. 2. Children will be educated Christianly. 3. It removes sluggishness in teaching." Nay, Zuingli often urges against the Anabaptists the unreasonableness of objecting to infant Baptism, "since it is an outward and ceremonial thing[2], which, as well as other outward things, the Church may use worthily and with propriety, or omit and remove it, as seems to her most to conduce to the edification and well-being of the whole body."
It is remarkable, that in Zuingli again, with this depreciation of Baptism is united the denial of original sin, as sin, in all born of faithful parents[3]—which is indeed essential to the whole theory that the Sacraments are signs only, or attest only grace imparted; for if original sin is not remitted through Baptism, then, as these writers affirm, these children must have been holy by virtue of the covenant, i.e. had no original sin. Original corruption Zuingli admits, but its sinfulness he explicitly denies[4].
In taking this view of Baptism, Zuingli was aware that he was setting up a new doctrine, unheard of in the Christian Church from the times of the Apostles to his own. We do not judge him; but in this instance he stands forth as a solemn warning
- ↑ De Bapt. f. 95. v. sqq.
- ↑ Ib. f. 96. ad. libell. D. Baltazar. f. 105. v.
- ↑ See above, p. 86.
- ↑ "I confess that our first father sinned a sin, which is a real sin, wickedness, crime, and wrong. But his descendants have not sinned in this way; quis enim nostrum in paradiso pomum vetitum depopulatus est dentibus? Whether then we will or no, we are obliged to admit that original sin, as it is in the sons of Adam, is not properly sin, as has been already shown; for it is not an offence against the law. It is then properly a disease and a condition." Ad. Carolum Imp. Fidei ratio, f. 539 v.: and f. 540, having argued shallowly from Rom. v. 1 Cor. xv. 22, he terms it "impious and presumptuous" to hold, that in Christian children "it deserveth God's wrath and damnation," (Art. 9) on account partly of the reparation through Christ, partly of God's free election, which does not follow faith, but faith follows it. Cp. de Peccato originali Declaratio, ib f. 115, v. sqq.
