desire, but of necessity; for their proper name, if we consider well
the thing in connection, should be, Christ-minded, Apostle-minded,
or Gospel-minded, Gal. 3:26,27,29, as they were called of old, yea,
many centuries ago, because their religion agreed with the doctrine
of Christ, the Apostles, and the holy Gospel; which appears from the
confessions of faith which they from time to time have published, and
which we, as far as we know them, are ready to defend, if necessity
requires it; of which also others boast; but how they prove it, they
may answer for themselves, and the impartial and intelligent may judge.
The name Anabaptists which is now applied to them, has but lately
come into use, deriving its origin from the matter of holy baptism,
concerning which their views differ from those of all, so-called,
Christendom. In what this difference consists, we will now briefly, and
in the sequel more fully state.
We could have wished that they had been called by another name, that
is, not only after the holy baptism, but after their whole religion;
but since it is not so, we can content ourselves with the thought that
it is not the name, but the thing itself, which justifies the man. For
this reason we have applied this name to them throughout the work, that
they may be known and distinguished from others.[18]
[18] Ancient Israel was called the circumcision because all
Israelites were circumcised. 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:6; 6:15.
OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND WHY WE HAVE PREFERRED IT TO ALL OTHER ARTICLES, IN
OUR HISTORY.
We have chosen holy baptism in preference to any other article of the
Christian and evangelical religion:
1. Because it is the only sign and proof of incorporation into the
visible Christian church, without which no one, whoever he be, or
whatever he may profess, or how separated and pious a life he may lead,
can be recognized as a true member of the Christian church. This is
fully, yet without controversy, shown and confirmed in the following
history.[19]
[19] Paul asked the Church at Rome, whether they did not know, that
as many as were baptized (or incorporated through baptism) into Jesus
Christ, were baptized into his death? Rom. 6:3. Compare with Gal.
3:27; 1 Cor. 12:13.
2. Because it is, beyond contradiction, the only article on account
of which others call us Anabaptists. For, since all other so-called
Christians have, yet without true foundation, this in common that they
baptize infants; while with us the baptism only which is accompanied
by faith and a penitent life, according to the word of God, is
administered, to _adults_; it follows, that with us such persons are
baptized who have received baptism in their childhood, without faith
and repentance; who, when they believe and repent, are again, or at
least truly baptized with us; because with us their previous baptism,
being without true foundation, and without the word of God, is not
considered baptism at all.[20]
[20] Notwithstanding Philips of Marnix; then, F. Beza; then Menso
Alting; then, Abr. A. Doreslaer; and then, the latest translators
of the Bible, have come to another conclusion concerning the
re-baptizing of the twelve Ephesian disciples who had been baptized
by John, Acts 19:1–3; there has, nevertheless, as far as we have been
able to discover, before the time of P. Marnix, yea, for more than
fifteen hundred years, never been a single Greek or Latin divine who
doubted that those Ephesians were baptized again, because the first
time they had been baptized without having a knowledge of the holy
Ghost.
3. Because the imperial decrees (when some so-called Christians began
to tyrannize) in the days of Theodosius and Honorius, A. D. 413, were
issued and proclaimed everywhere, expressly against the Anabaptists
and those who were rebaptized; namely against such who maintained the
aforementioned article, as the Anabaptists of to-day do; which was also
the case in the last persecution, during the reign of Emperor Charles
V., more than eleven centuries afterwards, A. D. 1535; when all who,
having been baptized in infancy, had been rebaptized upon their faith
and repentance; or who maintained these views, were punished with a
severe death, as may be seen in our account of baptism, and of the
martyrs, for the years 413 and 1535.
4. Because it would not have been possible to write in detail of all
the other articles of the Christian faith and worship of God, as they,
through all the centuries from the days of Christ up to the present
time, have been believed and practiced according to the manner of the
Anabaptists of this day; without going beyond the bounds of the largest
book; since no book could possibly be printed or planned on so large
a scale, as to contain all this; wherefore we have been obliged to
observe moderation in writing, throughout, so as not to become diffuse,
or overstep the bounds of a reasonable book.
THE REASON WHY WE HAVE POINTED OUT THE ARTICLE OF HOLY BAPTISM, AND THE
ADHERENTS OF ANABAPTISM, FROM THE DAYS OF CHRIST TO THE PRESENT TIME.
For more than a century up to the present day, people have been made
to believe that the Anabaptists contemptuously so-called, have
but recently sprung from some erring spirits,--some say, from the
Munsterites,[21] etc.; whose fabulous faith, life and conduct, the true
Anabaptists have never recognized; for no one will ever be able to show
with truth, so far as we have been able to ascertain, that the articles
of religion of those Munsterites, whereby they have drawn the attention
of the world upon themselves, and which consist in commotion, rebellion
and such like, have ever been adopted or acknowledged as good, much
less professed and lived, by any formal church of the Anabaptists, or
by any well known member of the same. But, on the contrary, they have
from that time on and ever since declared that they would have neither
lot nor part with them or their transactions; and admonished one
another, not to follow such ways, because these could not stand the
test before God and his word, nor before the mind of a true and meek
Christian, as being contrary to the Gospel of Christ, and the most holy
faith.
[21] Aside from the fact, that the Anabaptists did not spring from
the Munsterites, but have existed through all the times of the
Gospel, as has been sufficiently shown, we would, moreover, state
that the pernicious and evil proceedings which took place at Munster
about the year 1534, can, according to the truth, not be laid to the
charge of the Anabaptists, who, at that time, like innocent doves
fleeing before the talons of the hawk into clefts of the rock, or
into hollow trees, had to hide themselves; but must be placed to
the account of some Lutheran preachers, to whom a certain _Jan van
Leyden_ had recommended and taught Anabaptism. According to old and
authentic authors these proceedings happened as follows:
In the year 1532, Bernaert Rotman, a Lutheran (at that time called
Evangelical) preacher, began to preach at Munster in St. Maurice
church, against the doctrine of the Papists; when, however, the
Papists of Munster came to know this, they bribed him with money, to
go away.
But a few months afterward repenting of it, he came back, and drew
such crowds, that he, being sustained by some of the chief men of the
city of Munster, erected his pulpit in the entry of the church. He
also sought to have other churches opened in order that this doctrine
might be propagated the more widely;--if this were not done, they
should be opened by force, etc. In the mean time, on the 14th of
February, 1533, there arrived at Munster, Jan van Leyden, a strange,
odd and opinionated man, who, though he maintained baptism upon
faith, yet in most other points never agreed with the Anabaptists. To
be brief, after much controversy he brought the matter so far, that
not only Bernaert Rotman, who had at first opposed him, but also his
colleague, H. Staprede, and various others, began to preach against
the practice of infant baptism. On the other hand, Jan van Leyden
learned from them, especially from B. Rotman, the doctrine that one
might defend and propagate his religion with external weapons.
In the mean while, the magistrates, apprehending serious mischief
which might be expected to spring from this, forbade those who they
thought were giving the most occasion to it, the city. They, indeed,
left the city, yet, on the instigation of B. Rotman, entered it again
by another way.
Finally matters came to such a pass, that the aforementioned,
and other supporters of the Lutheran (or miscalled, Evangelical)
doctrine, who had become agreed with Jan van Leyden, in the article
of baptism, collected together and resolved to bring about a total
restoration of religion; deciding also, that to this end, as it could
not be effected quietly, it should be done by force of arms; further,
that in Munster the beginning should be made.
Jan van Leyden was constituted the leader; and through B. Rotman’s
proclamation much ignorant and simple people from the surrounding
places were summoned, to help carry out said restoration, which
however was not made known to them at first. These were promised
that, in Munster, they should receive tenfold for their goods which
they had to abandon on this account.
Without loss of time they opposed the power of the bishop. They
erected fortifications, seeking not only to defend themselves, but
also to exterminate their opponents, that is, the true adherents of
Rome and the Pope. But matters took quite a different turn from what
they had intended: they were defeated and the bishop and those of the
city triumphed.
Rotman himself, (notwithstanding that his associates were in equal
distress) despairing of his life, ran to the enemies to be killed by
them; so that he might not, like Jan van Leyden, be taken alive, and
come to a shameful end.
This, then, was the tragedy enacted at Munster; the instigation,
progress and execution can and may not be attributed to the so-called
Anabaptists, but to the first-risen Lutherans, especially to B.
Rotman and his followers. Had this restoration been successful, the
Lutherans would not have been ashamed of it; on the contrary they
would have boasted of it, and never would have let the honor of it
remain in the hands of the Anabaptists. To this alludes the following
old ditty:
Had successful been the glorious restoration,
Never would the much-despised Anabaptists
Have obtained the honor: Luther, or some other,
By the sword of Rotman, lord would have been crowned.
[Compare tract Onnooselheyds Peyl. etc., edit. Harl. Anno 1631.
Annex Hist. Mart. a little before the introduction; with the various
attestations of Bernhard Rotman; Godfrey Stralensis, Rollins, and
other Lutheran leaders at Munster; whose writings concerning this
matter were published shortly after the transaction, and have also
come down to us. Also, the notes of Melanchton, Guido, Sleydan; and
also in the great atlas, old edition.]
Were we disposed to pay them in their own coin, we might say: The
Munsterites were fellow-members of those who sanction war and claim
that one must propagate and defend his religion with the sword. For
this is what they did; but _we_ speak against it with heart, soul, and
mind.
Nevertheless, the people were made to believe these things; and
therefore, many simple people without experience or knowledge have
adopted the above opinion, simply because their pastor, preacher, or
teacher told them so; hence, many slanders have sometimes been, and are
still, spewed out like bitter gall, against the so-called Anabaptists,
who are despised and rejected by everybody.
In order to show that the doctrines of the Anabaptists, especially
that article on account of which they are called Anabaptists, did
not originate with the Munsterites, or any other erring spirits who
have arisen in these last times, but have proceeded from the source
of truth--Christ and his apostles, we have placed their origin in the
time of Christ, and shown that at that time already, this article, with
other articles of the Christian religion, was taught and practiced; and
also after the death of the apostles, through every age, even to the
present time.
Now the point will be to give the reasons why we have called this whole
work, with all the persons contained therein, after the Anabaptists;
from which, as the second question, might be asked: whether all the
persons mentioned, confessors as well as martyrs, none excepted,
confessed the same as what the Anabaptists of this day confess? or
whether any believed, practiced, or maintained higher or lower, more or
less, in this or that article?
We shall treat these matters separately, and one after the other,
giving the _reasons_ as well as the _answers_.
REASON WHY WE HAVE CALLED THIS WHOLE WORK AFTER THE ANABAPTISTS.
The reason which has induced us is two-fold:
1. Because, as we have shown clearly, there have been persons in every
century, from the beginning of the Gospel all along, who have believed
and taught the article of holy baptism, with other articles noted in
the margin--on account of which the Anabaptists have received this
name--in the very same manner as the Anabaptists, and have, each in
his time, instructed, engrafted, and confirmed their contemporaries
therein, as may be seen in the whole history, especially in the first
fifteen centuries.
2. Because we have not found mentioned in the writings of authentic
authors anything concerning those persons whom we have noted as true
witnesses, which conflicts with the above mentioned doctrines of the
Anabaptists. And whenever something has been laid to their charge,
which is not in harmony with the uprightness of the faith professed
by them, we have shown that the witnesses to such charge were not
authentic or acceptable; or that the things brought against them, were
committed by them not after, but before their conversion; or that, if
they at any time have fallen into them, they truly forsook them before
their death, and from which all this appears.
But whenever we have found that any, as regards the faith professed,
were actually guilty of serious errors, offensive mis-conceptions, or
bad actions, for which the above excuses could not be brought forward;
we have dropped such entirely, and not mentioned them; that the pious
and most holy witnesses of Jesus Christ might not be defiled with their
unclean and unholy leaven.
ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, WHETHER ALL THE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN THIS WORK,
NONE EXCEPTED, HAVE CONFESSED THE SAME THAT THE ANABAPTISTS OF THIS DAY
CONFESS.
Concerning this we say that a distinction must be made between the
first and last martyrs;--not that they have differed in the faith,
for this we have not found; but because they were not all examined in
regard to the same articles of faith; and consequently did not reply
in one and the same manner; and this from the fact, that some suffered
among the pagans, some among the Jews and the Mohammedans, and some
among the false Christians, that is, the Romanists.
Those who suffered among the pagans were, for the most part, examined
concerning the first article of the Christian faith, wherein we
confess: “I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty Creator of
heaven and earth,” etc.; and if the apprehended Christians confessed
only this, _viz._, that they believed in one God, they were condemned
to death: for the pagans recognized many gods.
Those who suffered among the Jews or the Mohammedans were examined
concerning the second article, wherein we confess: I believe “in Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord, who was conceived
of the holy Ghost,” etc. When they had confessed this, they had
also forfeited their lives; for the Jews and the Mohammedans do not
acknowledge Christ as the Son of God, much less as his only-begotten
(or own) Son, and that he was conceived of the Holy Ghost.
On account of this article many believers were killed among the Arians.
Those who suffered among the false Christians, especially among the
Romanists, were examined concerning nearly all the articles of faith,
in regard to which difference of opinion existed between us and them,
viz: the incarnation of Christ, the office of the secular authorities,
the swearing of oaths, etc., but above all others, the article of holy
baptism, namely: whether they were denied infant baptism? or, whether
they were re-baptized? which latter principally caused their death; as
sentence of death was immediately passed upon them, and their life
taken.
Besides these articles (on account of which they also had to suffer
among the followers of Zwingli and Calvin) the Papists laid before
them also, either for denial or for confession, the manifold papal
institutions, which at different times and above and contrary to the
most holy faith and life, had originated, and been forced, as necessary
articles for salvation, upon the innocent plain, and orthodox people,
that they should believe, and live according to them, such as the
invocation of deceased saints; sacrifices for the dead; pilgrimages to
the sepulchres of the saints; the worshiping and salutation of images
made with hands; masses; vigils; ceremonial night watches; choral
prayers whether paternosters, Ave Marias, or rosaries, or others; the
making the sign of the cross; sprinkling with holy water; the tonsure;
the wearing of white, gray, black, or other clothes; the chasuble; and
innumerable other things which it is almost impossible to mention.
When the orthodox martyrs were examined by the Papists concerning these
and similar matters, they must necessarily express their opinion in
regard to them, and, therefore, unfold the articles of their own faith,
which were opposed to them; so that on such occasions frequently the
whole foundation and all the particulars of the saving faith which they
held in common with us, were discussed.
This is the reason, therefore, that only those martyrs who suffered
among the false Christians, especially among the Papists, made
confession of nearly all the articles of faith; while all the others,
though faithful and sincere confessors of the evangelical truth,
who sacrificed their lives among the pagans, Jews, or Mohammedans,
confessed but very little thereof: because they were not examined
concerning them.
Moreover, at first there were not so many articles of faith concerning
which different opinions prevailed, than there were in later times; for
which there was a reason; for, since in the beginning there were not
so many apostates and different sects than in later times; the points
which had to be asserted against those who disputed them originally,
were fewer than afterwards, when many churches began to spring up, and
each defended his own; from which the true believers had to distinguish
themselves by their confession of the controverted articles of faith.
No true Christian of the Anabaptists of this day will stumble at the
fact that the first martyrs have not confessed so many articles of
faith as the last ones, or as are confessed now; which, as has been
said, is founded on a satisfactory reason.
However, we have found, and are fully satisfied therewith, that
although, for the reason already mentioned, some have confessed more,
and others less, of the articles of faith, they notwithstanding did not
differ from each other in regard to their purpose and meaning; we speak
with reference to those things which are of considerable importance,
and may be considered as necessary for salvation.
But should it nevertheless be true, that one or the other (whereof one
have not heard), on account of the earliness, degeneracy, or darkness
of preceding times, was not truly enlightened; either in the faith
or in the knowledge of it, or possessed some serious weakness or
deficiency; but nevertheless, keeping the true foundation of salvation,
that is, Christ,[22] though weak and frail, died, sacrificing his life
through a violent death, with a good purpose, to the honor of God, the
edification of his fellow brethren, above all, to the preservation
of his own soul; such a one should, according to the nature of love,
be excused, and counted a true martyr,[23] because of his entirely
good intention, and his total renunciation, even unto death, of his
possessions as well as his own self; for which the Lord has promised
everlasting life, yea, the crown of life, Matt. 19:29, compared with
Rev. 2:10: “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown
of Life.”
[22] “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which
is Christ Jesus.” 1 Cor. 3:11. On this foundation built all the true
martyrs, of whom we have given an account; and unanimously kept it.
[23] For this reason a considerable error, which could not be allowed
in a common member of the church not laboring under trial and
oppression, might be tolerated in a martyr.
This is what we have thought proper to call attention to in regard to
the title and contents of these two books; but before we dismiss the
subject, it behooves us to make a brief statement in regard to the
preceding or old work.
STATEMENT IN REGARD TO THE OLD WORK.
It was our intention to leave the second book, that is, the history
of the martyrs from the year 1524 to 1614, unaltered, just as it was
published before to the service of our fellow-brethren in the faith;
except that we proposed to add a few more martyrs of the same faith,
inserting them where it might be suitable. But our original design in
this matter has been far transcended, since we, besides the writing of
the whole first book, have added not only a few, but many, martyrs to
the second book; and as many of the death sentences of the martyred
persons, which we have recently obtained, did not agree in date and
other circumstances with the respective accounts contained in the old
book, some of them differing very greatly from each other; which came
from the fact, that, when the martyrs were put to death, the rest of
the believers of the place were frequently scattered on account of
the existing danger, in consequence of which neither the time nor the
manner of their death could be recorded: therefore we have, whenever
we discovered such discrepancies, rewritten the original accounts and
ordered them according to the time and manner indicated in the death
sentences recorded by the papal and other clerks of the criminal court;
in order that even the adversaries, if possible, might become convinced
by their own testimony of the shedding of the blood of the saints.
This was no small task and burden for us; yet we have labored through
and finished it (thanks be to the Lord for his grace). But how this was
accomplished, we let the impartial and intelligent judge.
However, we consider it certain, that we shall not escape criticism;
the world, being evil, is wont to criticise everything good. Besides,
we have not aimed to please everybody, but to write the truth;
and this, we think, we have done without passion, prejudice, or
partiality.[24]
[24] Justus Lipsius says in the preface to his first book of
“Steadfastness”: “Few readers will suffice me; one suffices me; none
suffices me also: for I have written this for myself.” But this we
leave to him, who had written it only for himself.
If anybody is displeased with this book, he may know that we have
written it only for ourselves and for the well-disposed. With the
evil-minded we have nothing to do. Therefore we shall console ourselves
in regard to whatever we may meet with on this account. God and a good
conscience shall be our support.
The captious I cannot escape,
Who fault will always find;
But yet, my heart shall never fear,
Since God my purpose knows.
Yea, Lord! thou knowest all my thoughts;
To thee my cause I trust.
I care not what my haters say,
So free my conscience is.
Far be it from us, however, to acquit ourselves of all liability to
err. No man in this world is so infallible, that he may not at some
time err.[25] We consider it to be certain, therefore, that we, here
and there (though not intentionally, but innocently), have erred; and
this the more, as we have compiled and written this to a great extent
while we were in distress, severe illness, yea, on the bed of sickness,
when death threatened us; for which reason we ought to be the more
excused, though we, for truth’s sake, do not seek it.
[25] “Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly” (2
Cor. 22:1), says the apostle Paul, with whose wisdom we should not
compare ours in the thousandth part.