Part 264
Two days and one month after the apprehension of the last mentioned witness of Jesus Christ, namely, on the 25th of October, 1639, there also died in the dungeon Othenbach, very miserably, however with a steadfast and joyful mind, Henry Gutwol, of Lehnmer, from the Knonow Bailiwick, after he had suffered much want, poverty and misery there; which painful and prolonged misery, upon which death ensued, shall hereafter, because of his steadfastness in the accepted truth, be returned to him in an eternal, joyful and triumphant life, according to the Lord’s promise: “Be thou faithful unto death and I will give thee a crown of life,” Revelation 2:10. Compare both tracts, that of Mangold as well as that of Meyli; the one of A. D. 1645, the other of A. D. 1658, in the Swiss language, on the name Henry Gutwol.
HANS JACOB HESS, WITH HIS WIFE, A. D. 1639.
Among those who suffered in the Swiss persecution, there was none of the least Hans Jacob Hess, a chosen and confirmed minister of the Christian church.
He was apprehended for the third time in the year 1639; for from the two preceding imprisonments, the first of which had occurred already, in the year 1637, the Lord, beyond all expectation, had remarkably delivered him, through the aid of those that were imprisoned with him; as also out of this third imprisonment. The first lasted nineteen days, the second, eight weeks, the third, eighty-three weeks, or more than a year and a half.
But in the meantime his life was made very bitter and vexatious: for he was stripped, and, together with some of his fellow-believers, put in iron bonds, sixteen weeks, which he nevertheless patiently bore with a steadfast mind, until the time of his deliverance.
While this was taking place, namely in the same year, also his wife was apprehended, who was first imprisoned in the council house, and then in Othenbach, where, through bad treatment and unfit food and drink, for sixty-three weeks, she was so impaired in her constitution, and weakened, that she was seized with consumption, and after suffering much misery, died in prison.
This then was the end of this pious heroine of Jesus, who, to receive 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.