Infant baptism is an immemorial practice of the Church instituted by the Apostles. On this occasion I wish to examine the testimonies that the Church has left us throughout history in favor of this sacrament, in which we are buried with Christ in His death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. I will also briefly address which heresies throughout the centuries have placed obstacles in the way of children being regenerated at birth from water and the Spirit, and their development through history.

Infant Baptism in the Church Fathers from the First to the Fourth Centuries

In the first four centuries of the Christian era there is a practically unanimous consensus on this point (Tertullian being the only significant exception). There are numerous testimonies from Church Fathers speaking of the importance of infant baptism. Some chose to delay it — not because they doubted its validity, but for reasons such as not wishing to abandon a sinful life and obtaining forgiveness of sins at the very moment of death (rather foolhardy, since no one knows when he will die or whether he will have the opportunity to be baptized) — or even to avoid the penances they would have to perform should they fall back into sin after baptism.

Irenaeus of Lyon (130–202 A.D.)

He echoes the faith of the primitive Church, which professed that every man is born in the flesh and must therefore be born of water and the Spirit — which he unambiguously interprets as baptism, through which the remission of sins is also obtained.

“It was not without reason that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon being baptized, but it served as an indication to us, for we, being lepers in sin, are cleansed by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’”[1]

Throughout the writings of this and other Fathers one will see that at no point do they restrict the grace and gifts of God to anyone, whether infants, adolescents, or adults. In the following text, although there is no explicit reference to infant baptism, we do find the belief that God can pour out His grace and sanctify all people regardless of whether they are of an age to believe or not (thereby refuting, more than a millennium in advance, the arguments used by the Anabaptists).

“For He came to save all through means of Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord.”[2]

Origen (185–254 A.D.)

The testimony of Origen is of capital importance, not only because, like other Fathers, he explains why it is necessary to baptize infants, but also because of his explicit testimony that this was a custom the Church received directly from the Apostles. Origen confirms in advance with his pen what archaeology would later corroborate upon finding evidence of infant baptism in the primitive Church.

“The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. For those to whom the secrets of the divine mysteries were committed knew well that all men carry the stain of original sin, which must be washed away by water and the Spirit.”[3]

“If children are baptized “for the remission of sins,” one must ask: of what sins are we speaking? When could they have sinned? How can such testimony in favor of infant baptism be accepted unless one admits that “no one is free from sin, even if his life upon the earth has lasted but a single day”? The stains of birth are blotted out by the mystery of baptism. Children are baptized because “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.””[4]

“There were many lepers in Israel in the days of the prophet Elisha, but none of them was cleansed — only Naaman the Syrian, who did not belong to the people of Israel. Consider the great number of lepers who were present at that time “in Israel according to the flesh.” Look, on the other hand, at the spiritual Elisha, our Lord and Savior, who in the baptismal mystery purifies men covered with the marks of leprosy and addresses these words to them: “Rise up, go to the Jordan, wash yourself, and your flesh shall be made clean.” Naaman rose, went, and bathed, and the mystery of baptism was fulfilled: “his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child.” Of what child? Of the one who “in the washing of regeneration” is born again in Christ Jesus.”[5]

“If you like to hear what other saints said about physical birth, hear David, when he says: ‘I was fashioned,’ thus reads the text, ‘in iniquity, and my mother conceived me in sin’; he demonstrates that every soul born in the flesh bears the stain of iniquity and sin. This is the reason for that sentence we have cited above: No one is clean from sin, not even the child who is only one day old. To all this may be added a consideration concerning the motive the Church has for the custom of baptizing even infants, given that this sacrament of the Church is for the remission of sins. Certainly, if there were nothing in infants that required remission and forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem unnecessary.”[6]

Hippolytus of Rome (? – 235 A.D.)

A testimony of singular importance is also found in the Apostolic Tradition, which is one of the oldest and most important ecclesiastical constitutions of antiquity (it was written around the year 215). In it we find specific instructions on the administration of baptism, where the practice of baptizing infants is recorded, along with how they could be baptized by virtue of the faith of their parents.

“At cockcrow, they shall begin to pray over the water. Whether the water flows from a spring or flows from above, it shall be done thus, unless there is a necessity. But if there is a permanent and urgent necessity, use whatever water is available. They shall undress, and the children shall be baptized first. All those who can speak for themselves shall speak. As for those who cannot, their parents shall speak for them, or someone from their family. The men shall then be baptized immediately, and finally the women…

The bishop, laying his hands on them, shall say the invocation: ‘Lord God, who has made them worthy to obtain the remission of sins through the bath of regeneration, make them worthy to receive the Holy Spirit and send upon them your grace, that they may serve you according to your will; to you be glory, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and for ever, Amen.’”[7]

Cyprian of Carthage (200 – 258 A.D.)

Evidence exists that during his lifetime there were those who sought to delay the baptism of infants until after the eighth day following birth, in imitation of circumcision. This made it necessary for Cyprian, in his own name and that of 66 bishops, to send a letter to Fidus bearing witness to the faith of the Church — that the baptism of infants need not be delayed and that infants may be baptized at any time. The complete letter is available on the Web in volume V of the Ante-Nicene Fathers by Schaff (Protestant) as well as in the New Advent Encyclopedia.[8]

“But with respect to the case of infants, in which you say that they ought not to be baptized on the second or third day after their birth, and that the ancient law of circumcision is to be considered, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, all of us thought very differently in our Council. For in this course which you thought should be taken, no one agreed; but we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no one born of man. For as the Lord says in his Gospel: ‘The Son of man did not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,’ inasmuch as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost…

Moreover, the faith in the divine Scripture declares to us that all of us, whether children or adults, have the same equality in the divine gifts…

For which reason we believe that no one should be hindered from obtaining the grace of the law, by the law in which it was ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely all men are to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks and says: ‘The Lord has told me that I should not call any man common or unclean.’ But if nothing could hinder men from obtaining grace, and the most atrocious of sins cannot obstruct those who are grown up; but if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who have sinned much against God, when they subsequently believe, the remission of sins is granted, and nobody is withheld from baptism and from grace, how much more ought we not to withhold an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, having been born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its very birth…

And therefore, dear brother, this was our opinion in the Council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think is to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons…”[9]

It is important to note that what Fidus and possibly other presbyters intended here was not to deny baptism to infants, as a large segment of Protestantism does today, but simply to delay it until after the eighth day following birth.

Gregory of Nazianzus (329 – 390 A.D.)

He wrote a beautiful sermon on baptism that bears witness to the faith of the primitive Church, in which he held that while faith was necessary for an adult to receive the sacrament, this was not the case for a child (who received it by virtue of the faith of the parents); therefore there was no excuse whatsoever for postponing baptism, not even in the case of infants.

“Let us be baptized so that we may overcome. Let us take our share of those waters more cleansing than hyssop, purer than the blood of the victims prescribed by the Law, more sacred than the ashes of the heifer whose sprinkling could be sufficient to give to common faults a provisional bodily purification, but not a complete remission of sin: would it have been necessary, without it, to renew the purification of those who had already received it?

Let us be baptized today, so as not to be obliged to do so tomorrow. Let us not delay the benefit as if it were causing us some inconvenience. Let us not wait until we have sinned more in order to be forgiven in greater measure through it. That would be making an unworthy commercial speculation about Christ. To take on a burden heavier than we can bear is to run the risk of losing in a shipwreck both vessel, body and goods — that is, all the fruit of the grace we have failed to make use of…

17… Even infants: do not give time for malice to seize hold of them; sanctify them while they are still innocent, consecrate them to the Spirit while they have not yet grown teeth. How faint-hearted and lacking in faith are the mothers who fear the baptismal character on account of the weakness of their nature! Before she had brought him into the world, Anna dedicated Samuel to God, and immediately after his birth she consecrated him; from that moment, she brought him clothed in a priestly garment without any fear of men, on account of her trust in God.

There is no need, then, for amulets or incantations, means by which the evil one insinuates himself into spirits too easily swayed and turns religious fear of God to his own profit: oppose to him the Trinity, that great and beautiful talisman…”[10]

As a personal opinion he recommends that, if they are not in danger of death, one should wait until the age of three, so that they may be able to recite the mysteries of the faith in a rudimentary way, although he notes that this is not a requirement for receiving the sacrament:

“All this is well said for those who seek baptism for themselves, but what can we say of infants, still of tender age, who are incapable of perceiving the danger they are in and the grace of the sacrament? Are they to be baptized as well?

Certainly, in case of imminent danger it is better to baptize them without their consent than to let them die without having received the seal of initiation. We are obliged to say the same as was said regarding the practice of circumcision, which was performed on the eighth day prefiguring baptism and which was also exercised upon children devoid of reason. In the same way, the anointing of the doorposts was performed, and even though it involved inanimate things, it protected the firstborn.

As for the other children? Here is my opinion: wait until they reach the age of three, so that they may be capable of understanding and expressing in a rudimentary way the mysteries; despite the imperfection of their understanding, they receive the seal, and their body, as well as their soul, is sanctified by the great sacrament of initiation. They will have to render an account of their actions at the precise moment when, in full possession of reason, they arrive at a complete knowledge of the Mystery, for they will not be responsible for the faults that the ignorance proper to their age may cause them to commit. Moreover, in any case it is advantageous for them to possess the rampart of baptism to protect themselves from the dangerous assaults that fall upon us and surpass our strength.

27. But, it will be said, Christ, who is God, was baptized at the age of thirty, and you urge us to rush to baptism. To affirm his divinity in this way is what resolves the objection. He, purity itself, had no need of purification, but was purified for your sake, just as for your sake he took on flesh, for God has no body. Moreover, he ran no danger by delaying his baptism, for he could regulate his suffering at will just as he had regulated his birth. For you, on the contrary, the danger would not be small should you depart this world without having received, at your birth, anything more than a perishable life, without being clothed with incorruptibility.”[11]

John Chrysostom (347 – 407 A.D.)

“Praise be to God! He who works such wonders. Do you see how manifold is the grace of baptism? Some see in it only the remission of sins, while we can enumerate ten gifts of honor. For this reason we also baptize young infants, even before they have begun to sin, so that they may receive holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, so that they may become members and dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.”[12]

Basil the Great (330 – 379 A.D.)

“There is a fitting time for everything: a time for sleep and another for waking, a time for war and a time for peace. Yet the time of baptism encompasses the whole of man’s life. If it is impossible for the body to live without breathing, much less is it possible for the soul to subsist without knowing its Creator.

Ignorance of God is the death of the soul. One who has not been baptized has not been illumined either. Just as without light the eye cannot examine what concerns it, so likewise the soul cannot contemplate God. Moreover, every time is favorable for attaining salvation through baptism, whether it be night or day, an hour or a still shorter space of time, however brief. Certainly the approaching date is, to a greater degree, the most appropriate. What season could indeed be more suited to baptism than the day of Easter? For that day commemorates the resurrection, and baptism is a source of energy for attaining the resurrection.

For this reason, the Church has long summoned her “nursing infants,” in a sublime proclamation, so that those whom she brought forth in pain, placing them in the world after having nourished them with the milk of catechetical teaching, might taste the solid food of her dogmas.”[13]

Pelagianism: the first heresy to reject infant baptism

But it was in the fifth century that the first heresy appeared which would deny the necessity of baptism, including infant baptism; its author was Pelagius, a monk influenced by pagan doctrines (especially Stoicism). He minimized the efficacy of grace and held that the will, through its free choice, can attain holiness on its own. For the Pelagians there was no original sin; they thought that Adam had not been created immortal, so that he would have died even had he not sinned, and that infants are in the same state as Adam before his fall, contracting no original sin whatsoever. By denying original sin, they consequently viewed infant baptism as unnecessary.

After becoming a monk, Pelagius traveled to Rome before the year 400. After Rome was conquered and sacked by the Goths he departed for Carthage and then to Jerusalem, accompanied by Caelestius, another supporter of Pelagianism who effectively helped him spread his doctrines.

Eighteen bishops, including Julian of Eclanum, adhered to Pelagianism, while Saint Augustine combated the heresy tenaciously. The Pelagian bishops were deprived of their sees and condemned by the African councils of Carthage and Milevis (in the years 411, 412, and 416), which pronounced:

“Likewise it was pleasing that whoever denies that infants newly born from their mothers’ wombs are to be baptized, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration — whence it follows that the formula of baptism “for the remission of sins” is to be understood in their regard not as true but as false — let him be anathema. For what the Apostle says: Through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed unto all men, in that all have sinned [cf. Rom. 5:12], is to be understood in no other way than as the Catholic Church spread throughout the world has always understood it. For by this rule of faith even small infants who have as yet committed no sins of their own are truly baptized for the remission of sins, so that in them may be cleansed by regeneration what they contracted by generation.”[14]

Nevertheless, the Pelagians refused to submit to the councils. The participants of the councils wrote to the Pope requesting his approval of the decisions of these local councils, which Pope Innocent I granted. Saint Augustine considered the case closed with the sentence of the Apostolic See (Rome); however, after the death of Pope Innocent, Caelestius made a profession of faith before Pope Zosimus that came close to misleading him, but the latter confirmed the sentences of his predecessor. Subsequently the Council of Ephesus in the year 431 again condemned Pelagianism, which was then attempting to spread into Britain.

Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 A.D.)

Thanks to his vigorous combat against Pelagianism, the texts in which he explores in depth the necessity of baptizing infants to cleanse them of original sin are abundant.

“The baptism of infants born of Christian parents.

On account of this concupiscence, not even from the just and lawful marriage of the children of God are children of God born. For those who beget, even though they have already been regenerated, do not beget as children of God but as children of this age. Indeed, such is the word of the Lord: “The children of this age beget and are begotten.” Insofar as we are still children of this age, our inner man is corrupted. For this reason, they too are begotten as children of this world, and will not be children of God unless they are regenerated. But insofar as we are children of God, the inner man is renewed day by day, and the outer man as well, through the bath of regeneration, is sanctified and receives the hope of future incorruption, wherefore it is rightly called the temple of God…”[15]

“Whoever denies that children, when baptized, are rescued from the power of darkness, of which the devil is the prince — that is, from the power of the devil and his angels — is refuted by the truth of the very sacraments of the Church. No heretical novelty can change or destroy anything in the Church of Christ, since the head governs and aids his whole body, both the small and the great.”[16]

“Indeed, from the time that circumcision was instituted among the people of God — which was then the sign of justification by faith — it had value for signifying the cleansing of original ancient sin also for infants, for the same reason that baptism began to have value also for the renewal of man from the moment it was instituted. Not that before circumcision there was no justice at all through faith — for Abraham himself, the father of the nations who were to follow his same faith, was justified by faith when he was still uncircumcised — but rather that the sacrament of justification by faith had been completely hidden in more ancient times. Nevertheless, the same faith in the Mediator saved the ancient righteous, both small and great.”[17]

The Protestant Reformation and the Anabaptist movement

It would be centuries later, within the Protestant Reformation itself, in the immediate circle of the reformer Ulrich Zwingli, that another movement would arise against infant baptism. The adherents of this movement were called Anabaptists (or Baptists).

The birth of this movement traces back to the year 1523 when the Reformation arrived in Zurich. It would not be long before divisions began within Protestantism. Several groups of Protestant collaborators separated from Zwingli to form a community independent of civil authority. Among these were Conrad Grebel (1498–1526), Felix Mantz (1500–1527), and several others. They began to develop the idea that only those who believe rightly and conduct themselves rightly are members of the Church, so that in their opinion infant baptism could not even be considered as such, and was therefore invalid. The Anabaptists then began to have themselves rebaptized, rejecting the validity of their first baptism and claiming that only those who could consciously express their faith in Christ could be baptized.

In the year 1524 Grebel refused to have his newborn son baptized, which provoked a conflict with the council of Zurich; in January 1525 the council ordered that anyone who did not baptize his child within eight days should be expelled from the city. Grebel and Mantz[18] were forbidden to preach; however, since Protestantism had rejected the authority of the Church in favor of the free interpretation of the Bible, this new movement had no reason to submit to the new authorities.

It is in this context that Protestant inquisitions made their appearance. Despite the use of torture and the decree of the death penalty on March 7, 1526 for anyone who performed a second baptism, it proved impossible to contain the Anabaptists (as would likewise be the case with every subsequent Protestant denomination). Executions of Anabaptists then began, among the most notorious being those of Felix Mantz (by drowning), Jorg Blaurock, and Michael Sattler (burned alive). The victims continued to mount, but Anabaptism spread, reaching even Germany, Luther’s own land, and the Reformed countries, where Calvin’s word was law.

Banned in both Catholic and Protestant regions, various Anabaptist groups arose (Mennonites, Hutterites), some peaceful, others less so. One of the leaders of these violent Anabaptist groups was Thomas Müntzer, who after having been a follower of Luther ended up becoming his fierce enemy. He led groups of peasants who, though they began by making just demands and sought Luther’s moral support, ultimately took the path of violence when he finally turned his back on them. It is here that Luther writes “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants”[19], in which he exhorts the princes to carry out a slaughter of peasants in public or in private, culminating in a grotesque massacre.

As time passed, the Anabaptist tendency penetrated various Protestant denominations, permeating with its arguments regarding baptism even non-Anabaptist denominations (Pentecostals, Methodists), while at the same time being rejected by others (Calvinists, Lutherans, Reformed).

Among some Protestant confessions that rejected Anabaptist doctrines are:

“We teach that baptism is necessary for salvation and that through it divine grace is given to us. We also teach that children are to be baptized and that through this baptism they are offered to God and receive the grace of God. It is for this reason that we condemn the Anabaptists who reject the baptism of children.”[20]

“Not only those who profess faith in Christ and obedience to Him in fact are to be baptized, but also the infant children of one or both believing parents.”[21]

“Question: Are infants also to be baptized? Answer: Certainly, because they are included, like adults, in the covenant, and belong to the Church of God. To both infants and adults alike the remission of sins and the Spirit, author of faith, are promised through the blood of Christ; and therefore, as a sign of this covenant, they must be incorporated into the Church of God and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, just as was done in the covenant of the Old Testament by circumcision, of which Baptism is the substitute in the New.”[22]

“We oppose the Anabaptists, who do not accept infant baptism of the children of believers. But according to the Gospel, ‘the kingdom of God belongs to children’, and they are included in the covenant of God.

Why, then, should they not receive the sign of the covenant of God? Why should they not be consecrated by holy baptism, given that they already belong to the Church and are the property of God and of the Church?”[23]

“For this reason, we believe that whoever desires to enter into eternal life must be baptized once with the one Baptism, never to be repeated; for neither can we be born twice. But this Baptism is useful not only while the water is upon us, but also throughout all our life. Therefore we condemn the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with a single baptism once received; and who, beyond this, condemn the baptism of the children of believers; whom we believe must be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children of Israel were circumcised in the same promises made to our children. And indeed Christ shed His blood no less to wash the children of believers than He did for adults. Therefore they must receive the sign and Sacrament of what Christ has done for them; as the LORD in the Law commanded that the Sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ be administered to them shortly after they were born, sacrificing a lamb on their behalf, which was a sign of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Baptism signifies for our children what Circumcision signified for the Jewish people; which leads Saint Paul to call Baptism ‘the circumcision of Christ.’”[24]

Anglicans also rejected Anabaptism:

“Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of distinction whereby Christians are distinguished from those who are not baptized; but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New Birth, by which, as by an instrument, those who receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the remission of sins, and of our Adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.”[25]

John Calvin in his work Institutes of the Christian Religion devotes an entire section to refuting Anabaptism.[26]

Notes

  1. Irenaeus of Lyon, Fragment 34
    New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0134.htm Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/anf01/ix.viii.xxxiv ↩
  2. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies 2, 22, 4. Carlos Ignacio González, S.J., Ireneo de Lyon, Contra los herejes, Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano, México 2000. ↩
  3. Origen, In Rom. Com. 5,9: EH 249. Johannes Quasten, Patrology I, Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos 206, Fifth Edition, Madrid 1995, p. 395. ↩
  4. Origen, In Luc. hom. 14, 1.5 Enrique Contreras, El Bautismo, Selección de textos patrísticos, Editorial Patria Grande, Segunda Reimpresión, Buenos Aires 2005, p. 41 ↩
  5. Origen, In Luc. hom. 33, 5Ibid p. 43 ↩
  6. Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 8, 3. Cf. Quasten, Patrology, vol. I, p. 394. ↩
  7. Hipólito, Tradición apostólica 20,21 Enrique Contreras, El Bautismo, Selección de textos patrísticos, Editorial Patria Grande, Segunda Reimpresión, Buenos Aires 2005, págs. 45,47 ↩
  8. Early Church Fathers, http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/anf05/iv.iv.lviii ↩
  9. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 58 (To Fidus), on the baptism of infants. Early Church Fathers (Schaff), http://www.ccel.org/print/schaff/anf05/iv.iv.lviii. New Advent, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050658.htm ↩
  10. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40, 11–17 (On Holy Baptism). NPNF2, vol. VII. New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm. ↩
  11. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 40, 26–27 (On Holy Baptism). NPNF2, vol. VII. New Advent Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm. ↩
  12. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions (Sermon to the Neophytes), 1. ↩
  13. Basil the Great, Protríptico del Santo Bautismo, 1Ibid p. 4 ↩
  14. II Concilio Milevis, 416 y XVI Council of Cartago, 418, aprobados por los papas San Inocencio I y San Zósimo, del Pecado Original y de la gracia, canon 2 Daniel Ruiz Bueno, Denzinger, El Magisterio de la Iglesia, Manual de Símbolos, Definiciones y Declaraciones de la Iglesia en materia de fe y costumbres, Editorial Herder 1963, D-102 ↩
  15. Augustine of Hippo, El Matrimonio y la concupiscencia, Libro I, XVIII, 20Complete Works of St. Augustine, Tomo XXXV, BAC 457, Madrid 1984, p. 272-273 ↩
  16. Augustine of Hippo, El Matrimonio y la concupiscencia, Libro I, XX, 22 Ibid p. 276 ↩
  17. Augustine of Hippo, El Matrimonio y la concupiscencia, Libro II, XI, 24 Ibid p. 332 ↩
  18. Para una historia más detallada del movimiento anabaptista puede consultar: Hubert Jedim, Manual de Historia de la Iglesia, Tomo V, Editorial Herder ↩
  19. Martin Luther, Ausgewählte Werke, vol. V, ed. H. H. Borcherdt and Georg Merz (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1962). A Spanish translation can be found online at http://www.inep.org/content/view/1739/99. ↩
  20. Confesión de Augsburgo 1530 Artículo 9 (Iglesias Luteranas) ↩
  21. Confesión de Westminster 28.IV (Iglesias reformadas) ↩
  22. Catecismo de Heidelberg, pregunta 74 (Iglesias reformadas) ↩
  23. Confesión Helvética (Antigua confesión protestante de 1566) ↩
  24. Confesión Reformada de los Países Bajos y de varias iglesias reformadas actuales, año 1619 Artículo 34Biblioteca de la Iglesia Reformada, http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Confesion_Belgica.html ↩
  25. Los 39 Artículos de la religión, (Confesión doctrinal histórica de la Iglesia Anglicana) Capítulo 27http://www.iglesiareformada.com/39_Articulos.html ↩
  26. Está disponible en la Biblioteca de la Iglesia reformada en: http://www.iglesiareformada.com/Calvino_Institucion_4_16.html ↩