The Schleitheim Confession: From the Eyes of Zwingli and Calvin

The following is an essay I wrote for Theologies of the Reformations, a fourth year course at CMU that I took last term.

The Schleitheim Confession:

From the Eyes of Zwingli and Calvin

The “Brotherly Union of a Number of Children of God Concerning Seven Articles” or more commonly called the Schleitheim Confession was a document composed by Michael Sattler and ratified on February 24, 1527 by an assembly of Swiss Anabaptists gathered in Schleitheim to help discern who they were. It is comprised of seven articles, each focusing on a specific part of the faith that the Anabaptists felt was important. It was immediately very popular with the Anabaptists, and some of its positions have since become the norm for descendants of the Anabaptist movement like the Mennonites.[1]

Because of its prominence, both Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin responded to it. The Second part of Zwingli’s “In Catabapistarum Strophus Elenchus” or “Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists” is a response to the seven articles in the Schleitheim Confession. It was written in July 1527 for four reasons, as a justification for his persecution of the Anabaptists, to answer internal struggles within himself, to respond to the growing presence of second generation Anabaptists (the original sex having died previous to its writing), and finally as the basis of a joint policy among the Reformed cantons, which would mark the beginning of even more persecution of the Anabaptists movement.[2] John Calvin also explored the seven articles in his “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against The Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists.” He wrote it following a request of William Farel in 1544 for help in refuting the Anabaptists’ claims.[3] While much of Calvin’s and especially Zwingli’s writings are quite vile towards the Anabaptists, this Essay extracts the major arguments of all three documents so as to inform our understanding of the theological debate in the Sixteenth Century about the Anabaptists.

Sattler on Baptism

            Baptism, the first article of the Schleitheim Confessions, was a key definer of the Anabaptist movement, hence the movement's name. Baptism is reserved for believers, who have been "been taught repentance and the amendment of life" and who believe that Jesus has saved them from their sins. Baptism represented dying and rising in Christ. Infant baptism was not considered valid, and in fact a papal abomination, because you had to be able to make the decision and ask for it yourself. Their sources for it were "the writings and the practice of the apostles" citing passages Mt. 28:19; Mk. 16:[1]6;[4] Acts 2:38; 8:36; 16:31-33; 19:4.[5]

Zwingli's Response

Zwingli agrees that baptism "should be administered to all in Christ, both penitents and those confessing that remission of sins is found" but he argues that the confession is thinly veiled justification by works, because while remission of sins is through Christ, it requires the person's elevated free will to walk in the resurrection of Christ in order for us to be saved. Zwingli sees this as being contrary to Jesus' words that no one comes to him unless the father sends them.[6]

Zwingli also notes an apparent contradiction between this first article and the seventh concerning oaths. Anabaptists refuse to swear oaths. However, they only baptize those who  "walk according to the resurrection of Christ" since this requires a promise that the person will try to do this, and yet will fail, making them liars why do you make them promise to something they cannot keep, while  refuse them from doing something that they can, like swear an oath? [7]

In terms of infant baptism, Zwingli has similar thoughts to Calvin (see below), connecting the practice to circumcision, arguing that the demand for a confession of faith before baptism was non biblical since those who were circumcised were generally unable to make said confession. Zwingli acknowledges that Anabaptists probably would not accept this since they ignore the old testament, even though Christ didn't, citing 1 Corinthian 10 and Colossians 3.[8]

Calvin's Response

            Calvin's response to the first article begins first with refuting the claim that infant baptism is a papal heresy. Instead, he says that there is not a single Doctor of the church who does not claim that the practice traces itself to the days of the apostles. While this wasn't a major claim for him, Calvin mentions it because one of his goals in the process was "informing the simple."[9] Even though the Catholic Church has been the ones preserving the practice, Calvin notes that its authority is not derived from tradition, and that it does not depend on humans to continue to continue its saving work.[10]

            Calvin notes that the Schleitheim Confession’s understanding comes from a combination of Matthew 28:19 "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and Mark 16:16 "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," however, they are taking the portions about baptism out of context since baptism only comes secondary to the preaching and receiving of the Gospel.[11]

            Furthermore the salvation given to the one who believes in the good news is given to their children. As long they do not believe, then they are strangers to the church, but when salvation leads them into repentance and faith, their whole family becomes part of the church.[12] Instead of each person needing to understand the gospel in order to be baptized, as according to Schleitheim, the children are baptised based on the parent’s confession of faith. [13]

            Therefore the passages in Matthew and Mark only apply to people who are both able to be taught and outside the Christian church.[14] This is similar to how Abraham, who was an adult and was brought into God's "Church" thereby accepting God's covenant of circumcision which he passed down to future generations who received it while they were still infants.[15] St Paul shows this in action when he writes "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy".[16] Calvin defends this use of the Old Testament covenant, by citing Paul again in Ephesians 2 where it says that Jesus came to earth to eliminate any difference between Jew and gentile so that both may be children of God.[17]

            Calvin also refutes the argument that since there is no evidence of the apostles baptizing infants then we should not do it, by arguing that there is no evidence that they gave the Lord's Supper to any women either, and yet we do not exclude them from God's grace, so why should we exclude infants from participating in baptism if God considers them God's servants?.[18]

Sattler on the Ban

The second article of the Schleitheim confession was about the Ban, or excommunication. An issue, which according to Kenneth R. Davis may actually rival baptism as one of the key concerns of the Anabaptists, for while Baptism determined membership into God's kingdom, it was church discipline that kept the kingdom pure. In fact, in their institution of the community, awareness of the need to restore the ban may have had priority.[19] The ban followed the rule of Christ in Matthew 18, if a brother or sister was sinning, then they should be warned twice privately, before being brought before the church for admonishment. Only after this third attempt was someone removed from the community. But this has to happen before communion because it is important that the holy body of Christ be united as they eat the one bread and drink from one cup.[20]

Zwingli's Response

            Zwingli makes an interesting mistake. Based on his reading of his own Latin translation of the Schleitheim confession, he accuses the Anabaptists of twisting the words around and saying that the third offense should result in the church's "correction" while the bible says "admonition" which would be an issue if this were the case, correction just means moving from a wrong position to a right position, while admonition includes a threat.[21] However, the original German used the term for admonition, a fact that Yoder preserves in his translation,[22] even though Yoder often preferred Zwingli's Latin for translating over German manuscripts.[23] It is surprising Zwingli would make such a mistake and in the process ruin his argument.[24]^,[25]

            However, he does raise a valid concern about the use of the Lord’s Supper as part of discipline. For Anabaptists, at the beginning of the observance, they had to “declare that they were willing to take the ban upon themselves when and if it would be pronounced” which could happen immediately thereafter.[26] Instead reminding them about concepts like the “wheat and tares”, which Calvin also uses (see below), saying that some Churches are too lax, while others are too hard.[27] He also accuses the Anabaptists of not being consistent with their use of the Ban. Pointing to the practice of the apostles where people who committed major crimes like homicide or adultery were excommunicated, and yet within the Anabaptists there was a member who had killed another Anabaptist, but was not excommunicated.[28]

Calvin's Response

            Calvin had to be careful in this section because Church Discipline was important to his work in Geneva. He began by affirming that the ban "is a sound and holy order, not only useful but also necessary".[29] However he thinks that the Anabaptists have stolen this idea from him (which is preposterous since he was still a roman catholic and only 16 years old when the Anabaptists wrote the Schleitheim confession in 1527)[30], however that they did so imperfectly, while the Calvinists teach the pure doctrine concerning the ban.[31]

            Calvin argues that while Anabaptists will not celebrate the Lord's supper in a congregation that does not practice the ban since that congregation is not a true church, and that those present who should be excommunicated pollute it; the Calvinists, believe that while it is unfortunate and imperfect when a church doesn't have the ban that does not stop it from being a true church. Calvinists also believe that it is wrong to separate from said church. Calvin notes that even though Paul is disappointed and admonishes the church at Corinth for not using the ban, he still called them a Christian church.[32]

            Calvin, then goes on to note that the church itself is corrupted for two reasons: first, that every member of the church is going to sin at some point and fall from perfection, so we always need God's amazing grace. And second, that even in a church with the ban, diligently working to enforce it, there are always going to be "evil hypocrites who infect the fellowship with their filthiness." Therefore, Calvin admonishes the reader to listen to the Lord who said that "it is necessary to tolerate many bad weeds for fear that if we should pull them all up we might lose the good grain in the process" (based on Matt 13:25-29).[33] Therefore it is important to not condemn a church for not practicing the ban, or else you would injure good Christians along with the bad.[34]

When considering whether or not one should remove themselves from a church for fear of being polluted by sinners, Calvin points to the Old Testament prophets who even though were surrounded by a sinful people never stopped assembling the people to worship God through sacrifice and observing the law. Neither did they move away and build a new altar. Even Jesus went to the temple in Jerusalem who worshipped along with the "depraved" Pharisees and scribes.[35]

Throughout this section Calvin highlights the fact that God gives grace to those who are "overcome by their conumpisences[sic]" and understand their depravity. He says that if we do not allow God to be God and save sinners, then we condemn them.[36]

Sattler on the Lord’s Supper

For Sattler, only those who were joined with the body of Christ through baptism could participate in communion. Citing Paul, he writes that those who follow “the devil and the world” cannot participate in communion.[37]

Zwingli’s Response

First, he focuses on the fact that the baptism they speak of is their own baptism, while the Anabaptists thought infant baptisms (which everyone else practiced) did not count as a true baptism, and so their believer’s baptism was not a rebaptism but rather a first baptism,[38] Zwingli called it  a pseudo- or catabaptism. Zwingli, quick to defend his own baptism argues that by being baptised again, an act of dying and being risen in Christ, they are crucifying Christ for a second time.

            He also notes that while the Anabaptists require that they who willingly sin should be excluded from the table, but charges that their excommunication immediately before (mentioned above), is itself a sin, and therefore they are hypocrites.[39]

Finally, he attacks the Anabaptists for their condemnation of feasts and rituals. He says that this is unbiblical because Jesus and his disciples went to weddings and to Jerusalem, and that Israel celebrated festivals three times a year. Therefore they are condemning things that Christ himself did not hate and yet they “think of themselves so finely.”[40]

Calvin’s Response

Calvin barely mentions the third article because he agrees with it; nobody should come to the communion table unless they are truly a part of the body of Christ.[41]

Sattler on Separation from Evil

As has been stated previously, it was important for the Anabaptists to stay pure; as such the fourth article of the Schleitheim Confession was about separation from evil. Since all who have not entered into the body of Christ are “a great abomination before God” nothing good can come from them. Therefore everything is either good or evil and we need to pick good. Therefore, all “popish and repopish works and idolatry” (read: catholic and protestant practices and theology), winehouses, promises of unbelief, and anything else that that the world thinks is important is all vanity before God. Therefore, the Anabaptists also need to put away weapons of violence both for protected themselves and friends or vanquishing enemies because Christ told them “You shall not resist evil.”[42]

Zwingli’s Response

Again Zwingli seems confused; he has combined the titles of the fourth and fifth articles (avoiding abomination and pastors) so that it comes to read avoiding abominable pastors. Zwingli seems rather paranoid, for him is seems obvious that the thing the Anabaptists are trying to avoid is him.[43] This is why he writes “you would hardly divine if they had not said in the title that they dealt with the avoidance of abominable pastors in the church”[44]

In his response, he is careful to avoid condemning separation from the church, because his own movement would face the same criticism, so the question becomes what constitutes valid separation.[45] Separation for Zwingli is about separation from those who malign, not those who are weak. Christ teaching that the wicked should be shunned when they no longer respect the church.[46]

At this point he challenges the Anabaptists’ conversion techniques. Saying that new converts are not allowed to attend other churches for at least a month so that they can be properly brainwashed, and instead have to attend church in the dark or at the house of a member because this works better than if they actually tried to debate their position within the church.[47]

Finally Zwingli critiques the Anabaptists’ rejection of the sword, saying that if they hate murder, then they need to avoid anything that could kill, like choking on a grape seed, or getting stung by a bee (Zwingli 192).[48] Zwingli contends that the magistrates are immune to the commands of Christ to not resist evil or to not rule because those commands were only given to the apostles and bishops, while the authority for magistrates come from God. The Anabaptist fears authority because they seek to create confusion.[49]

Zwingli ends by stating that he too encourages the laying down of arms, but that the sword should be used for legitimate defence of those suffering.[50]

Calvin’s Response

Calvin applauds the Anabaptists for condemning Catholic superstitions and prohibiting Christians from practicing them, but then he takes exception to the Anabaptists’ conclusion that the use of the sword is not allowed. He notes that the Christian’s primary weapons are prayer and gentleness and that they “conquer evil by doing good” so the threatened Christian suffers evil. But the magistrate is called by God to use the sword for “restraining and preventing the violence of the wicked” (Calvin71-72).[51]

For Calvin, the prophets’ proclamation of the turning swords and spears into farm implements (Isaiah 2:4 and Mic 4:3) as being something that will occur only within the church, that Christians should not fight wars against other Christians, but that outside the church evil reigns, so it is necessary to use the sword. Princes are therefore ordained by god to protect their countries, but they need to do everything possible to avoid the use of violence.[52] Justification for including the magistrates as instruments of God is given to the fact that John the Baptist baptized soldiers and Peter baptized Cornelius and neither baptizer is reported of  saying anything about their jobs.[53]

Sattler on Pastors

In a growing movement like the Anabaptists were, leadership is very important. For those gathered at Schleitheim, it was important that pastors should be above reproach, “read and exhort and teach, warn admonish, or ban in the congregation,” as well as lead in prayer, communion and anything else the congregation needed. These pastors should be supported, by the congregation so they have time to properly prepare for church. They also provide a way to reprimand the pastor, with two or three witnesses, and in public so even as they face discipline, they are also teaching fear to others. If something happens to the pastor, a new pastor is to be ordained immediately so that the flock has leadership.[54]

Zwingli’s Response

Zwingli sees the providing of support for a pastor as being hypocritical since they “deny to the bishop of the Christian church” the same. Zwingli argues that the pastor should support themselves some other way than burdening the congregation since they have so many other taxes that they have to pay.[55]

Calvin’s Response

            Calvin begins by noting that over time the Anabaptists have changed from having pastors running around to various congregations to now being called to a certain place. Calvin’s explanation for why this occurred initially was so that “they could spread their poison everywhere”. However, he agrees that churches need ministers to keep them intact. However, he takes exception to the way that the Anabaptists will not listen to a sermon from a Calvinist preacher, and how they view other churches as ravishing wolves, this view causing discord within the church, and setts one group against another.[56]

Sattler on the Sword

For Sattler, the sword is “an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ,” It protects that which is good, and punishes the wicked. The Secular rulers are given authority to use it. But within the perfection of Christ, the only form of punishment is the ban. Christ teaches that within the church, we are to admonish people not to sin. Christians are not supposed to be judges because Jesus refused to judge inheritance, and that Christians should not be magistrates because government is something reserved for the flesh, while Christians live by the spirit.[57]

Zwingli’s Response

For Zwingli, he notes how when the Anabaptists say that members of Christ who do not meet the perfection of Christ might need the sword, and yet they are refusing it, therefore the Anabaptists are claiming to be within the perfection of Christ.[58]

Zwingli also cites a well-known story about someone who had been an Anabaptist but returned from it, who said “if we had been as superior to you as you were to us, you would have seen whether we had swords and oaths or not”.[59] The weak twist morality in order that their position is the just one, even though if they had the power they would not be so quick to take that position.

According to Zwingli, Jesus never forbade a Christian from political office. Where Jesus says “who would follow me must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” does not mean that Christians could not follow Jesus and rule, since many “kings have despised themselves and followed him, though retaining royal authority until the end.” (Zwingli 202). Zwingli also notes that Peter baptized Cornelius, and Philip baptized the eunuch both without forbidding them to rule, as well as how Paul allowed Christians to be masters as long as they are faithful.[60]

            Zwingli also notes that Christians would make the best judges since they would be the most just because they would be “rightly affected to all, and unwavering, giving no decision in partiality or hatred or fear or violence. (Zwingli 204). And yet, supposedly Christians can’t be magistrates because that is a worldly job. But if that is the case, then nobody could be a Christian since everyone is in the world. But if being in the spirit refers to prayer and contemplation, and then a magistrate could pray and contemplate and then do their job while being in the spirit.[61]

Calvin’s Response

Calvin disagrees with the Anabaptists; there are many judges, kings and prophets in the Old Testament who made use of the sword for God’s work. While the Anabaptists might claim that God requires more perfection from the church than the Jewish people, this is not the case. In Matthew 5 when it looks like Jesus is giving a new law, really Jesus is just restoring the original intention of the law.[62]

            Calvin notes the inconsistency that Anabaptists maintain that the magistrates’ use of the sword is ordained by God, but somehow if you do that you are sinning. (Calvin 81). He also notes that if it were wrong for a person to rule, than it would be wrong for a people to rule, and yet, Paul says it is okay for Christians to own slaves, though they treat them differently than the secular masters would.[63]

            He also argues that just because Jesus did not govern does not mean that his followers cannot. Luke 9:58 says that Jesus had no place to rest his head, if we applied the same logic, then Christians could not own property.[64] Instead, Christians are allowed to govern, and they must do so in a way that makes God’s name exalted above all others. They need to understand that they are servants of God. Anabaptists are therefore enemies of God because they try to fight against something that God has put in place[65]

Sattler on the Oath

The final section of the Schleitheim Confession is on the Oath. They define it as “a confirmation among those quarreling or making promises. In the law it should only be done in the name of God.” But then Jesus tells his disciples to not swear. And while some might argue that since God swore to Abraham that we should be able to as well, God has the power to do what he commands mere mortals to. The Schleitheim confession also delineates between swearing and testifying about what is present. Concluding that our words should just be a simple yes or no.[66]

Zwingli’s Response

Zwingli’s response is that if the Anabaptists did away with oaths and magistrates, then there would be total chaos.[67] Oaths are for Zwingli also a good thing. Oaths are “an appeal to God in deciding or vouching for something.” They have their roots in exodus, and are calling on God’s wrath if the person making the oath disobeys it.[68]  Oaths are therefore an “anchor” to the truth.[69]

Zwingli then turns to Matthew 5:33 and argues that Christ would not forbid the use of swearing, just the use of swearing lightly. Christians are supposed to not swear falsehoods.[70]

Calvin’s Response

Calvin again notes that he agrees largely with the Anabaptist’s sentiment. There was too much swearing happening at the time, and that God’s name was much cheapened. [71]And yet he wants to maintain the oath. 

            The oath, for Calvin, is a good thing, it is ordained by God for “confirming and ratifying truth”, and that God is honoured by it when his people use it. (Calvin 93). He says that the Anabaptists need to discern whether there is a difference between bad oaths and good ones.[72] In the law, it is the taking of God’s law in vain that is prohibited, not the act of using it itself.[73]

Calvin then tries to discern what exactly Jesus was trying to prohibit in Matthew five. Calvin claims that the scribes and Pharisees had taught the people that it was okay to break the law as long as they didn’t use the Tetragrammatons’.[74] Instead, Calvin says that God is the only thing that is okay to be sworn by.[75]

Calvin’s doctrine of human depravity shines again when he argues that oaths would be superfluous if humans were actually loyal and firm. However, since there are so many lies in the world, the only way to trust each other is through the use of oaths.

Calvin then says that the Anabaptists themselves admit to the Apostles’ use of testimony and say that oaths are okay if they are a verification of the truth, and are only wrong when it is a promise. But then, that would make Israel's use of oaths of loyalty to God a misuse of the law even though God commanded it (Calvin 104-5).[76]

Conclusion

While both Zwingli and Calvin’s writings are adversarial to the Anabaptists, and appear to have mistaken, it is important however to note that there are flaws in the Schleitheim confession as well and many of Zwingli and Calvin’s arguments make a lot of sense. This serves as an awakener that our ancestors might not have been the heroes that we thought they were. That being said, it is a testimony to the Schleitheim Confession’s witness that even though it initially was passed on handwritten copies, and was restricted, that it still survives to today. While the Schleitheim confession is not the confession of faith used specifically by Mennonite Church Canada, it is still an important part of our history, and is still a key touchstone in our theology.

References

Calvin, John. “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the

Common Sect of the Anabaptists.” In Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against

the Libertines, edited and translated by Benjamin Wirt Farley, 11-158. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

Davis, Kenneth R., “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution  to the Reformed

Tradition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, 13, no. 4 (1982):43-58.

 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2540009.

Farley, Benjamin Wirt. “Editor’s Introduction” In Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against

the Libertines, 13-35. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982.

Harder, Leland. “Zwingli’s Reaction to the Schleitheim Confession of Faith of the Anabaptists,”

The Sixteenth Century Journal, 11, no. 4 (1980): 51-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539975.

Sattler, Michael. The Schleitheim Confession,. Translated by John H. Yoder. Kitchener: Harold

Press, 1977.

Wenger, John C. and C. Arnold Snyder. “Schleitheim Confession.” Global Anabaptist

Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession.

Zwingli, Ulrich. “Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, 1527” in Selected Works, translated

and edited by Samuel Macaulet Jackson, 123-258. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972.

---

[1] John C. Wenger and C. Arnold Snyder. “Schleitheim Confession.” Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online, http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Schleitheim_Confession.

[2] Leland Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction to the Schleitheim Confession of Faith of the Anabaptists,” The Sixteen Century Journal, 11, no. 2 (1980), 52,53,66.

[3] Benjamin Wirt Farley, “Editor’s Introduction” in Treatises Against the Anabaptists and the Libertines, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982),19.

[4] The text says Mark 16:6, but that doesn’t have anything to do with baptism, while Mark 6:16 does.

[5] Michael Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, trans, John H. Yoder (Kitchener: Herald Press, 1977), 10.

[6] Ulrich Zwingli “Refutation of the Tricks of the Catabaptists, 1527,” in Selected Works, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1972), 179.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] John Calvin, “Brief Instruction for Arming All the Good Faithful Against the Errors of the Common Sect of the Anabaptists” in Treatises Against the Anabaptists and Against the Libertines, ed.& trans. Benjamin Wirt Farley, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), 45.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid., 46-7.

[13] Ibid., 47.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] 1 Corinthians 7:14, New International Version.

[17] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 51.

[18] Ibid., 55.

[19] Kenneth R. Davis “No Discipline, No Church: An Anabaptist Contribution to the Reformed Tradition,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, 13, no. 4 (1982), 45.

[20] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 10-11.

[21] Zwingli, Refutation, 181.

[22] Sattler, 10.

[23] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 55.

[24] Ibid., 57

[25] I noticed the inconsistency, but Harder explained the significance to me.

[26] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 57.

[27] Ibid.. 58.

[28] Zwingli, Refutation, 182.

[29] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 56.

[30] Davis, “No Discipline,” 57.

[31] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 56.

[32] Ibid., 57.

[33] Ibid., 59.

[34] Ibid., 60.

[35] Ibid., 62.

[36] Ibid., 70.

[37] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 11.

[38] Davis, “No Discipline,” 43.

[39] Zwingli, Refutation, 186-7.

[40] Ibid., 187.

[41] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 71.

[42] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 11-13.

[43] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 59.

[44] Zwingli, Refutation, 187.

[45] Harder, “Zwingli’s Reaction,” 58.

[46] Zwingli, Refutation, 190.

[47] Ibid., 191.

[48] Ibid,. 192.

[49] Ibid., 193.

[50] Ibid.

[51] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 71-2.

[52] Ibid., 73.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 13-14.

[55] Zwingli, Refutation, 194-5.

[56] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 74-5.

[57] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 14-16.

[58] Zwingli, Refutation, 197.

[59] Ibid., 198.

[60] Ibid,. 202-4.

[61] Ibid., 205.

[62] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 77-8.

[63] Ibid, 89.

[64] Ibid.

[65] Ibid., 91.

[66] Sattler, The Schleitheim Confession, 16-18.

[67] Zwingli, Refutation, 208.

[68] Ibid,. 209.

[69] Ibid, 210.

[70] Ibid., 211.

[71] Calvin, “Brief Instruction,” 92.

[72] Ibid,. 95.

[73] Ibid., 97.

[74] Ibid.

[75] Ibid., 98.

[76] Ibid., 104-105.