Page:Balthasar Hübmaier.djvu/172

108 By this time Hübmaier had become thoroughly convinced, not only that the baptism of infants is contrary to Scripture, but that he ought to combat the practice. This we learn from a letter that he wrote to Œcolampadius, under date of January 16, 1525:

"For we have publicly taught that children should not be baptised. Why do we baptise children? Baptism, say they [Zwingli and Leo], is a mere sign. Why do we strive so much over a sign? The meaning of this sign and symbol, the pledge of faith until death, in hope of the resurrection to the life to come, is to be considered more than a sign. This meaning has nothing to do with babes, therefore infant baptism is without reality. In baptism one pledges himself to God, in the Supper to his neighbour, to offer body and blood in his stead, as Christ for us. I believe, yea, I know, that it will not go well with Christendom until Baptism and the Supper are brought back to their own original purity. Here, brother, you have my opinion; if I err, call me back. For I wish nothing so much that I will not revoke it, yea, cut it off, when I am taught better from the word of God by you and yours. Otherwise I abide by my opinion, for to that I am constrained by the command of Christ, the word, faith, truth, judgment, conscience. Testify to the truth, you can in no way offend me. I am a man and can fall, since that is human, but from my heart I desire to rise again. Write we whether the promise in Matt, xix., 14, 'Let the little children come to me,' etc., especially belongs to infants. What prompts me to that is the word of Christ, 'for of