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.