question, they convinced themselves without much trouble of the Scripturalness of the practice, and thereafter remained its firm advocates. This accounts for their friendly attitude towards Hübmaier and others when this question first began to be disputed, and it also accounts for other things to be related soon. It is absurd to attribute the rise of this question in Zürich to the agency of Thomas Münzer. Those who have conjectured, on the weak authority of Bullinger,[1] that he instructed Grebel and others in this matter, would hardly be prepared to admit that Münzer inspired the doubts which at the same time disturbed Zwingli and Œcolampadius. It is not necessary to have recourse to any outside agency to explain this very simple matter. The Zürich people were studying the Scriptures attentively to learn what they
- ↑ Weak because of Bullinger's strong prejudice against Anabaptists and his readiness to record anything to their discredit. Reformationsgeschichte, i., 224, 237; followed by Egli, Widerläufer, p. 19; Loserth, Hübmaier, p. 73, and others. On the other hand, the circumstantial narrative of Kessler is quite inconsistent with this theory. Sabbata, i., 265 sq. Hübmaier opposed the baptism of infants as early as May, 1523, and the earliest time that can with probability be assigned for his meeting with Münzer is after September, 1524, as we know from a letter of Münzer's to Œcolampadius.—Siedemann, Thomas Münzer, p. 136 sq.; cf. Jackson, Huldreich Zwingli, p. 243, n.
