In the morning, Thomas, still agitated by this night of disorder, and having, as it would seem, lost his reason, took the calf's bladder, and placing in it part of the gall, intending thus to imitate the symbolical language of the prophets, approached his brother Leonard, saying with a gloomy voice: "Thus bitter is the death thou art to suffer!" He then added: "Brother Leonard, kneel down!" Leonard fell on his knees; shortly after, "Brother Leonard, arise!" Leonard stood up. The father, brothers, and others of the company looked on with astonishment, asking themselves what God would do. Thomas soon resumed: "Leonard, kneel down again!" He did so. The spectators, alarmed at the gloomy countenance of the wretched man, said to him: "Think of what you are about, and take care that no mischief happens."--"Fear not," replied Thomas, "nothing will happen but the will of the Father." At the same time he hastily caught up a sword, and striking a violent blow at his brother, kneeling before him as a criminal before the executioner, he cut off his head, exclaiming: "Now the will of the Father is accomplished." All the bystanders recoiled with horror at the deed; and the farm resounded with groans and lamentations. Thomas, who had nothing on but a shirt and trousers, rushed barefooted and bareheaded out of the house, ran to St. Gall with frenzied gestures, entered the house of the burgomaster Joachim Vadian, and said to him with haggard looks and wild cries: "I proclaim to thee the day of the Lord!" The frightful news soon spread through St. Gall. "He has slain his brother, as Cain slew Abel," said the people.[602] The culprit was seized. "It is true I did it," he continually repeated; "but it is God who did it through me." On the 16th of February, this unhappy creature lost his head by the sword of the executioner. Fanaticism had made its last effort. Men's eyes were opened, and, according to an old historian, the same blow took off the head of Thomas Schucker and of fanaticism in Saint Gall. [602] Glych wie Kain den Abel sinen Bruder ermort hat! Bull. Chron. i. 324. [Sidenote: DISCUSSION AT ZURICH.] It still prevailed at Zurich. On the 6th of November in the preceding year, a public discussion on the subject of infant baptism[603] had been held in the council hall, when Zwingle and his friends proposed the following theses:-- "Children born of believing parents are children of God, like those who were born under the Old Testament, and consequently may receive baptism.[603] "Baptism[603] under the New Testament is what circumcision was under the Old; consequently, baptism ought now to be administered to children, as circumcision was formerly. "We cannot prove the custom of re-baptizing[603] either by examples, texts, or arguments drawn from Scripture; and those who are re-baptized crucify Jesus Christ afresh." [603] See note, Vol. I. p. 145. [Sidenote: LIMITS OF THE REFORMATION.]