Part 4

The aged, who have neglected their youth and middle life, and are now come to the eleventh hour,[16] and yet are still not working in the Lord’s vineyard, may here behold persons whose hoary head is a crown of glory, since they are found in the way of righteousness; who devoted their feeble powers, the short span of their life, yea their last breath, to the service and praise of their God and Savior, watching and waiting for the hour of their departure and the day of their redemption, that they might become an acceptable offering to the Lord. They longed for the clock to strike twelve, so as to be admitted by the Lord and be seated at his glad feast.

[16] Though it is not advisable in temporal things to put off doing the day’s labor until evening, yet it is better late than never. This holds good also in spiritual things.

When two of our last martyrs, Jan Claess of Alckmaer, and Lucas Lamberts of Beveren, an old man of eighty-seven years, received their sentence of death, at Amsterdam, Holland, in the forenoon of a certain day in the year 1544, Jan Claess said to the old man, Lucas Lamberts: “My dear brother, fear now neither fire nor sword. O what a glad feast shall be prepared for us, before the clock strikes twelve.” See II Book, year 1544.

All this and infinitely more the worldly-minded, ignorant and unbelieving are taught here. O that each of them would consider this well!

Men are more easily converted by good examples than by good teachings, because examples are more impressive; yet here you have both.

Let every one come hither, therefore; and no one remain behind; all have need to be taught in the way of salvation; no one would choose to be unsaved. Here you shall see the patience, the faith, and the constancy of the saints. Have compassion upon your own poor souls, whom the Lord loves so dearly, seeking to lead them to heaven; yea for whom the Son of God has shed his precious blood, thus purchasing them with so great a price. We would commend this matter most urgently to you as well as to ourselves. O Lord, help! O Lord, let it prosper!

But it is now time that we turn our attention to giving instructions concerning the proper understanding and use of this work.

TH. J. VAN BRAGHT.

_Dort_, July the 27th, 1659.

Introduction.

SUMMARY OF THE FOLLOWING WORK.

This work comprises two books, each of them containing a different and independent topic. The first is a treatise of the holy baptism and of that which pertains to it. The second is a historical account of the holy martyrs who suffered on account of baptism, or, generally, for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

These two topics have been briefly, yet not less clearly, treated, throughout, in every century, from the days of Christ up to our present time; and this order has been followed: through every century first an account is given, through faithful and authentic authors, of the subject of holy baptism, and the proper administration of the same during that time; to which we have each time added our own comments, explanations, refutations of objections, etc., then every century is again taken up, and an account given of the holy martyrs who suffered during that time. So that each century treating of holy baptism is followed by a century treating of the holy martyrs; and thus from beginning to end.

This, then, is a summary and the order of the following work; which we shall directly explain more fully, and give our reason for doing so.

OF THE TITLE OF THIS WORK: THE BLOODY THEATRE OF THE ANABAPTISTS, etc.

The first part of the title, consisting of the words, THE BLOODY THEATRE, will, we think, not be subjected to any serious criticism, since no one can dispute that all that is treated here, so far as the martyrs are concerned, is a representation or exhibition of the blood, suffering, and death of those who, for the testimony of Jesus Christ, and for their conscience’ sake, shed their blood exchanging their life for a cruel death.

But the second part, consisting of the words, “OF THE ANABAPTISTS,” may easily meet with some opposition, because some will not admit that the Anabaptists, or those who maintain such a confession as they do, have existed through every century, from the days of Christ up to the present time; and, what is still more, that they have had their martyrs. But in order to treat the matter systematically and in the best manner, we shall first speak of the name, and then of the thing itself.

OF THE NAME: ANABAPTISTS.[17]

[17] The word _Anabaptist_ is here used to signify the same as _Taufgesinnte_ in the German, and _Doopsgesinde_ in the Dutch language, for which the English language affords no better term, the literal signification of _Doopsgesinde_ being _baptism-minded_.

The name “Anabaptists” was really not accepted by them by choice or 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.