Martyrs Mirror

Dirk Andriess, A. D. 1569.

Dirk Andriess, a pious and godfearing brother, was apprehended at Zierickzee, A. D. 1569; and as he, in all temptations and sufferings, firmly adhered to the love of Christ, he was finally sentenced to death as a heretic, and thus, in order to follow Christ, who had died a bitter death for him, he also gladly for the Lord’s sake delivered up his temporal life to death, to enter with him into life eternal. Matt. 25:46.

JACOB DE ROORE, OR THE CHANDLER, AND HERMAN VAN VLECKWICJK, BOTH BURNED ALIVE AT THE STAKE, AT BRUGES, IN FLANDERS, FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS CHRIST, THE 10TH OF JUNE, A. D. 1569.

The very pleasant and favored country of Flanders, in and about the year 1569, was as a dreadful den of murderers, in which they did not hesitate to put to death the chosen friends and followers of Jesus Christ, yea, to deprive them little by little of life in the most awful and horrible manner, namely, by fire, to the sorrow and grief of many, who living at that time beheld it with weeping eyes. This appeared, among many others, in two valiant heroes, and champions of Jesus Christ. One of them was named Jacob de Roore, or the Chandler; he was a teacher in the church, and a very godfearing, intelligent, kind, and eloquent man, who was not afraid at the peril of his life to lead and feed, the flock of Jesus in the green meadows of the true evangelical doctrine, though it was in forests and wildernesses. The name of the other was Herman van Vleckwijck; he was a common member, but possessed nevertheless no small gifts.

These were both brought prisoners into Bruges, one of the Flemish cities, where they had to endure many hard and severe temptations from the papists, who sought to make them apostatize from the faith; but as they were founded upon the immovable corner stone, Christ Jesus, the edifice of their faith also remained firm, and they could by no means be moved or swerved therefrom. Hence the rulers at said place, through the instigation of the Romish so called spirituality (clergy) concluded their process, and delivered them both from life to death, to be burned to ashes at the stake, which was done on the 10th day of the month of June, A. D. 1569. Concerning this the following verses have been composed:

“In fifteen hundred and sixty-nine,

On the tenth of June, in the city of Bruges,

Encircled wholly by fiery flames,

With intrepid spirit, both Jacob and Herman.

Did testify before all the world

To the word of God, which they sealed with their heart’s blood,

And thus their sacrifice they did bring

To the mighty God that inhabiteth heaven.”

Of these two offered up children of God, two disputations are extant, which a certain monk, called Friar Cornelis held with them at said place, and which, because of the wise, intelligent and prudent answers of said two friends, are well worthy to be added here.

DISPUTATION BETWEEN JACOB DE KEERSGIETER AND MR. FRIAR CORNELIS, A FRANCISCAN MONK; IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. JAN VAN DAMME, RECORDER, AND MR. MICHIEL HOUWAERT, CLERK OF THE CRIMINAL COURT, ON THE 9TH OF MAY, A. D. 1569.306

Friar Cornelis. Well, I’ve come here to see whether I can convert you (Jacob, I believe, is your name) from your false and evil belief, in which you are erring, and whether I cannot bring you back to the Catholic faith of our mother, the holy Roman church, from which you have apostatized to this damnable Anabaptism. What do you say to this, eh?

Jacob. With your permission, as regards that I have an evil, false belief, this I deny; but that through the grace of God I have apostatized from your Babylonian mother, the Roman church, to the members, or the true church, of Christ this I confess; and thank God for it, who has said: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18:4; Is. 52:11.

Fr. Corn. Is it true? And do you call our mother the holy Roman church, the whore of Babylon? And do you call your hellish, devilish sect of Anabaptists the members, or the true church of Christ? Eh! hear this fine fellow once. Who the devil has taught you this! your accursed Menno Symons, I suppose, * * *

Jac. With your permission, you talk very wickedly. It was not necessary that Menno Symons should have taught us as something new, that the Babylonian whore signifies your mother, the Roman church, since John teaches us enough concerning this in his Apocalypse, or Revelation, in the 14th, 16th, 17th, and 18th chapters.

Fr. Corn. Ah bah! what do you understand about St. John’s Apocalypse? at what university did you study? At the loom, I suppose; for I understand that you were nothing but a poor weaver and chandler, before you went around preaching and rebaptizing out here in the Gruthuysbosch. I have attended the university at Louvain, and studied divinity so long, and yet I do not understand anything at all about St. John’s Apocalypse; this is a fact.

Jac. Therefore Christ thanked his heavenly Father, that he had revealed and made it known to babes, and hid it from the wise of this world, as is written, Matt. 11:25.

Fr. Corn. Exactly; God has revealed it to the weavers at the loom, to the cobblers on their bench, and to bellows-menders, lantern-tinkers, scissors-grinders, broom-makers, thatchers, and all sorts of riff-raff, and poor, filthy, and lousy beggars. And to us ecclesiastics who have studied from our youth, night and day, he has concealed it. Just see how we are tormented. You Anabaptists are certainly fine fellows to understand the holy Scriptures; for before you are rebaptized, you can’t tell A from B, but as soon as you are baptized, you can read and write. If the devil and his mother have not a hand in this, I do not understand any thing about you people.

Jac. I can well hear that you do not understand our way of doing; for you ascribe to Satan the grace which God grants our simple converts, when we with all diligence teach them to read.

Fr. Corn. See here once; these heretics presume to have the grace of God, and regard our mother, the holy Catholic Roman church as the whore of Babylon—is this not a fine grace of God? Ah, bah! you have the grace of the very devil of hell. What shall I say in regard to this? If you regard our mother, the holy Catholic Roman church as the whore of Babylon, I can well imagine what you consider our holy father the Pope, the vicar of God. Let us hear once.

Jac. I consider the Pope the vicar of God; for he occupies the place of God, as Paul writes concerning him, in the second chapter of his second epistle to the Thessalonians: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?”

Fr. Corn. Hush, hush, you have preached enough; here you are not in the Gruthuysbosch, nor do I sit down to hear you preach. Bah! you accursed Anabaptist, would you apply the prophecy of St. Paul to our holy father the Pope? * * * Hear this accursed heretic once; how he understands St. Paul. Bah! St. Paul thereby means the antichrist; that he does.

Jac. I too believe that Paul thereby means antichrist. But does not the Pope of Rome do the very works of antichrist? Does he not command you, that you are not to marry? Does he not command you to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which be lieve? as Paul writes in the fourth chapter of his first epistle to Timothy.

Fr. Corn. The devil sits in your cheeks; the devil and his mother play with your ugly mouth, that you know how to twist all the holy Scriptures according to your heretical notions, and to turn them on your thumb. But just wait, I shall show you very well, that our holy father the Pope is the vicar of God: for did not Christ say to St. Peter; “Feed my sheep;” and that upon him he would build his church? And did he not also give to St. Peter the keys of heaven, and all priestly authority, to loose from sin, and to bind, or to remit and to retain? And do not the holy popes sit upon the same seat, as successors of St. Peter, and have the same command and the priestly authority of the keys of heaven, to forgive sins and to retain them, through absolution after confession? What do you say to this now? let us hear.

Jac. Christ said, that upon this rock (that is, upon such a faith as Peter confessed, Matt. 17:16) he would build his church; he said nothing about a seat, or of vicars, or of successors, or popes, or of priestly authority.

Fr. Corn. He certainly spoke of the keys of heaven, and of loosing and binding. And if there were no pope, or high priest, nor sub-priests who then should have the authority, to hear confession, to absolve, and to forgive sins? scavengers, etc., I suppose.

Jac. Christ is our only true high-priest, as Paul writes to the Hebrews, in the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th chapters.

Fr. Corn. That is just where I wanted to have you; for if St. Paul thereby means that besides Christ no other high priests or common priests are necessary, why then does he say in the fourth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians: I will that every one so account of us, as of Christ’s priests over the sacraments of God? that is, administer the sacraments of the altar, of baptism, of confirmation, of extreme unction, of marriage, of confession and absolution, of penitence, and of consecrating and anointing priests. What do you hold concerning priestly estate, or the sacrament of the priesthood? Let us hear.

Jac. Next to Christ, we believers in Christ are all priests alike, according to the words of Peter in the second chapter (9th verse) of his first epistle, where he says to the believers in Christ: “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.” Again, Rev. 1:5,6: “Christ who loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” Again, Rev. 5:9,10: “For thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us [to God] by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests.”

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush! now you begin to preach again, do you? keep silence, or reply to me in regard to what St. Paul writes in the fourth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians: I will that every one so account of us, as of Christ’s priests over the sacraments of God. Answer to this. * * *

Jac. With your permission, Paul does not write as you say, and hence there is nothing to answer to it.

Fr. Corn. O you cursed Anabaptist that you are; I could swear by the saints, that St. Paul writes as I say: what do you say of this accursed, hellish, devilish heretic?

Jac. The Lord God forgive you this judging and cursing, and do not account it to your own condemnation. Christ also says (Matt. 5), do not swear an oath; but let your communication be, Yea, yea, Nay, nay.

Fr. Corn. Bah, this means that one is not to swear a false oath; but what I would swear is true. But you Anabaptists also have the fancy, that you are not to swear any manner of oaths. Bah, what a lousy fancy this is! I should like to hear why one may not swear a good oath.

Jac. Because Christ, in Matt. 5, says: “Ye have heard that it hath been said to them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” In like manner, also James says, in the fifth chapter (v. 12): “But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay: lest you fall into condemnation.”

Fr. Corn. Is it true? in this you would follow St. James; but when he in the same chapter speaks of the sacrament of extreme unction, saying: Is any sick, call for the priests of the church, and cause him to be anointed; and also, where, in the same chapter, he speaks of the sacrament of confession; herein you heretics are not willing to follow him. I have asked you once or twice, what you think of confession, and of the power of absolution, or remission and retention of sins; but you do not reply to me in regard to this.

Jac. You answer yourself, saying: “Who then should have the authority of hearing confession, absolving, and forgiving sins? scavengers, etc., I suppose.” For since you supposed the same I left it to you to answer.

Fr. Corn. Well, answer me then now, what you think of the sacrament of confession and absolution.

Jac. My answer is: If you would take and understand confession (which you papists now use) from the fifth chapter of James, you must also confess your sins to him that confesses his sins to you; for James says: “Confess your faults one to another.” Now if I confess to you all my sins, will you also confess your sins to me? I think not, and that you yourself would much rather acknowledge and say, that James did not mean such a confession as you papists now employ.

Fr. Corn. * * * You accursed Anabaptist that you are. You seek nothing but to tangle up everything that is advanced against you—the devil wags your tongue. But let us hear what you can say against this, where Christ says: “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” Matt. 8:4.

Jac. This Christ said to those whom he had healed and cleansed from leprosy, that they should go and show their bodies to the priests and let them see, that they were clean again, in order that they might go among the people again, from whom they had been separated on account of their leprosy. Matthew 8:4; Luke 17:14.

Fr. Corn. * * * Bah, it was plainly said: Go and confess to the priest; for so our mother the holy Catholic Roman church understands it. This was the reason why Christ gave his vicar, St. Peter the keys, that he might also have the power to bind and loose from sin, or to forgive and to retain, after confession as I told you. Hence, answer me once, but in a few words, without much preaching, see!

Jac. From this power of the keys, which Christ gave Peter, it is not to be understood, that you priests in popery have power to forgive or to retain sin.

Fr. Corn. Is it true? would accursed heretic say that the power which Christ gave his successor or vicar, St. Peter, does not pertain to us priests? What! no! do not the popes, as the successors of St. Peter, who sit in his seat, and we priests, still have the power as well as did the scribes and Pharisees, as the successors of Moses, who at the time of Christ still sat in Moses’ seat? of whom Christ says, in the twenty-third chapter (vs. 1, 2) of Matthew’s gospel: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. What do you say to this, eh? Let us hear it.

Jac. With your permission, but do not get angry; for I should have been afraid of incurring your abuse, if I had compared you to the scribes and Pharisees; but since you compare yourselves to them, I will reply to you. What Christ means is this: Whatsoever they command you to do from the law of Moses, that do. But he also commands his disciples, in Matt. 16:6, that they should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees. And though the Pharisees and scribes should have boasted themselves of the power which Moses had, as you priests boast of having the power which Peter received from Christ, of forgiving sin, who would have believed the Pharisees? since Christ pronounces woe over them so many times, Matt. 23: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayers. Woe unto you,” etc.

Fr. Corn. Fie, tush, tush; hear all this preaching. Bah, I know myself quite well, that Christ cries woe, woe, but do you think, that I have come here to hear preaching? I can preach myself, that I can.

Jac. Still, you desired that I should reply to your comparison between the authority of the Pharisees and that of you priests.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! do you think you can satisfy me with such a meagre answer? By no means we priests do not care for this; though the scribes and Pharisees were not of much account, their authority was none the less, on that account; and just so it is also with our priestly authority, after confession to absolve from and forgive, or to retain, sin, see!

Jac. What authority has a man that is already himself excluded from heaven, to help another into it: for Christ says, Matt. 5:20: “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” How shall an unrighteous man forgive the sins of one whose righteousness is greater than his own?

Fr. Corn. My lord the inquisitor wrote truly enough from Kortrijk, where you were born, that your tongue was well hung, and that it was labor lost to dispute against you. In troth, if you are so exceedingly opposed to all priestly authority, and say, that all men that believe, yea, even your wives and children, are all priests, why do you have more episcopal authority than the other Anabaptists? For you are their bishop, teacher and preacher. You rebaptize them, lay your hands upon their heads, and endow them all alike with the Holy Ghost, as they think. Hence, let us hear what you yourself think of your episcopal authority; for no one can lawfully administer the sacrament of confirmation, unless he be a bishop, or at least a suffragan. Hence, let us hear once, how you administer the sacrament of confirmation, and what you think of it.

Jac. I know nothing to say of episcopal authority, or of confirmation. How then should I administer it, or what should I think of it; for confirmation is a bugbear about which I know nothing.

Fr. Corn. Is it possible, do you Anabaptists call the sacrament of confirmation a bugbear? Ah, accursed heretic, the devil take you into the fire of hell, to burn you forever; see!

Jac. Do not get so angry and excited, for I call it a strange bugbear, because it is so unknown to me. But tell me what it is, and what you hold concerning it; then I can tell you better what I think of it.

Fr. Corn. Bah, this blockhead presumes to be a bishop of the Anabaptists, and does not yet know what the sacrament of confirmation is. If you are a bishop, you ought to confirm yourself. My lords, see once, what a fine bishop the Anabaptists have had out there in the Gruthuysbosch, who preached so many sermons there; is it not a fine bishop, teacher and preacher? Bah, see once, with what we have been vexed and tormented * * *

Jac. I am no bishop, nor do I consider myself a teacher; but I have sometimes led the brethren and sisters and converts of our church, with exhortation from the word of God or the holy Scriptures, according to my small ability.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you are a fine leader, that you do not yet know the sacrament of confirmation. Confirmation is, that the bishop or the suffragan anoints the grown children, and sometimes also adult persons (that are not yet confirmed) with the holy chrism on their forehead, and gives them a blow on the cheek, in token that they should remember that they have been confirmed; which confirmation signifies the confirmation of baptism. Now you will understand or know it, I think.

Jac. Just as little as before, since I also do not know what chrism and the confirmation of baptism are.

Fr. Corn. It seems that you know nothing concerning the Christian religion; so does the devil hold you by the throat. And you presume nevertheless to be a teacher and preacher of the Anabaptists. Bah, is it not a shame, that you have to be taught yourself yet, how children are confirmed, and that chrism is a substance mixed together of holy, consecrated things, which must not be told you? and that one has to teach you yet, that confirmation signifies the imposition of the priest’s hands, as the apostles laid their hands upon them that were baptized. Do you not yet understand it, blockhead that you are?

Jac. In the nineteenth chapter of Acts we read, that, after Paul had caused some Christian believers to be baptized at Ephesus, and had then laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came down upon them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Hence I do not believe that your confirmation or chrism, and your blow on the cheek, have anything in common with the imposition of the hands of the apostles.

Fr. Corn. Is it possible, so outspoken? you accursed Anabaptist, though you do not believe it, the sacrament of confirmation is therefore not one whit worse, for we Catholics believe it so much the more. My lords, what do you say of this accursed Anabaptist? for he does not believe in anything, that he don’t.

Recorder. Suffer yourself to be instructed, Jacob, and believe that which a Christian ought to believe, and don’t argue so much.

Jac. My lords, with your permission, I only answer to all his questions, and I believe only that which is written in the holy Scriptures.

Fr. Corn. Do you? * * * for you do not believe, that St. Paul, in the beginning of the fourth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians, writes: I will that every one so account of us, as of priests of Christ over the sacraments of God. And as I said, St. James writes the same, in his fifth chapter: Is any sick, call for the priests of the church; and let them pray over him, and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. Are we priests then not dispensers or administrators of God’s sacraments? and you say now, that you believe in all that is written in the holy Scriptures. It remains now to be seen or heard, what you believe concerning the sacrament of holy unction, of which St. James writes, as I tell you. Let us hear once.

Jac. I do not believe that the anointing with oil of which James writes has anything in common with the oil with which you anoint the sick among you; for the oil of which James writes healed the sick, as did also the oil concerning which Mark writes in the sixth chapter, that the apostles anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. But however much you priests adjure and conjure your oil, it can nevertheless not heal the sick; hence, that was another oil, than your oil which you call a sacrament.

Fr. Corn. A thousand devils (God bless us) what ails this hellish heretic now, that he makes sorcery of our reading, consecrating, blessing, and sanctifying over the sacrament of extreme unction. You bewitched, bedeviled, possessed Anabaptist, have reproved me once, because I cursed and condemned you; but I should go at you quite differently yet, in cursing, condemning and anathematizing you; but you are not worthy that I should so incense and excite myself about you. Therefore I tell you, yes, we Catholics call holy unction a sacrament, and regard it as a sacrament, and it is a sacrament, in spite of your mouth. Do you understand this, you bewitched, accursed Anabaptist, that you are?

Jac. If you want to imitate all the things which the apostles did, and regard them all as sacraments, why do you not also regard your aprons or handkerchiefs as sacraments, and lay them upon the sick, as Paul did? For what greater sacredness was there in the oil of which James writes, than in Paul’s aprons, by which he also healed the sick, as is written in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the apostles?

Fr. Corn. If the devil does not wag your tongue, I do not understand the matter. You accursed Anabaptists may yourselves make a sacrament of your filthy handkerchiefs or aprons; for you people have no sacrament, but we Catholics have seven sacraments; is it not enough, eh?

Jac. Yea, in troth; for since the term sacrament is not once mentioned in the holy Scriptures, you have only seven too many.

Fr. Corn. Bah, does not St. Paul call marriage a sacrament? And he does not bestow too much honor upon marriage, when he says, in the fifth chapter to the Ephesians: This sacrament is great. Would you reject this honor, put it from you, and trample upon it with your feet, I suppose?

Jac. Paul says: Two shall be one flesh; this is a great mystery. Eph. 5:31,32. If you want to make sacraments of all the mysteries, I am surprised that you have only seven sacraments.

Fr. Corn. It is easy to hear, that you Anabaptists do not esteem marriage very highly; for, if we priests should say, that priesthood only is a sacrament, and marriage not, I think you would reply: Show us where priesthood is called a sacrament, as is marriage. But when I consider the matter well, you Anabaptists do not observe marriage, since you have the women and maidens in common, and run together promiscuously, like dogs, the father with his daughter, the mother with her son, the brother with his sister, just like the beasts—is this not a fine thing?

Jac. With your permission, don’t get incensed, we are slandered in regard to this.

Fr. Corn. Ah bah! would you deny it, what ails you?

Jac. If it were true, I would not deny it; but this can never be said with truth of us.

Fr. Corn. Bah, bah! this is the most aggravating monstrosity yet. I thought you would go and show or prove to me from the Holy Scriptures, that the women may be had in common; and do you now want to deny it, eh!

Jac. But should I not deny those things that are lies?

Fr. Corn. This miserable Anabaptist would give me the lie. But do you think you can swindle me out of a matter which I so certainly know to be true? Bah, why will you deny it, seeing you have already so flatly denied the five sacraments, which is a hundred thousand times worse and more damnable, than to make common all the women and maidens of the whole world, that it is.

Jac. You are very wrong in accusing us with it; for it is something of which we are innocent.

Fr. Corn. Ah bah, now it is getting to be downright idiocy with this denying. I am mad and indignant enough to jump right out of my skin, that this accursed Anabaptist here would deny a matter so public, and known to all the world. Ah bah, I will stake my neck, that I have preached more than a hundred times, that you Anabaptists have the women and maidens in common, and that you also sever the marriage tie, giving to one man, when he is tired of his wife, another man’s wife; and, in like manner, to one woman, when she is tired of her husband, another woman’s husband. Don’t I know these things, eh?

Jac. I have heard it said sometimes, that a certain Friar Cornelis here, often preaches such things concerning us: is it you, permit me to ask?

Fr. Corn. Yes, I am Friar Cornelis, who preaches such things concerning you. Just take a good look at me. I ought to know that I am the man; and I will also clearly show to you, that I preach it with truth; for were they not Anabaptists who at Amsterdam, and elsewhere in Holland, ran stark naked through the streets, men and women, young maidens and boys, and said to one another: My spirit desires your flesh; eh?

Jac. Those were not of our brethren; for formerly there were such false brethren, as David Joris and Hendrick Nicolaus, who taught these things in secret, and said that no one might have anything as his own, and that therefore, no one might marry a wife for himself, but that women ought to be had in common. Others also wanted to prove from the Scriptures, that women that are unmannered or disorderly might be abandoned.

Fr. Corn. * * * Ah; bah, why would you deny, that you Anabaptists have the women in common. They certainly were Anabaptists, who, at Amsterdam, forcibly took possession of the city hall, and who overpowered and took the city of Munster, and afterwards were besieged, bombarded, stormed, defeated, captured, and put to death, with their king, Jan Beukelss, a tailor of Leyden. They certainly had the women in common, yea, not only the women, but also the property; yea, they robbed churches and convents, in Holland, Friesland, and Gelderland. Why would you then say, that these also were not of your brethren? You must be an idiot, I think.

Jac. These all belonged to the same (strange) false brethren; for as they taught, that women might not be held as own, so they also taught that property might not be owned individually, but was to be held in common, and that the property of the papists belonged to the Christians, and that they might seize it wherever they could, in order thereby to exterminate the ungodly with the external sword, and to abolish all government, in order thus to set up a new kingdom of Christ in this world. And through these this unchristian report has unjustly come upon us.

Fr. Corn. Is it possible? It remains to be seen yet, whether this evil report has unjustly come upon you. If you Anabaptists also had a head, like the Calvinists, you would persecute, trouble, torment, and martyrize us Catholics just as they do; this I swear to you. Well, enough of this; but that you would deny, that you Anabaptists have the women in common, this I cannot take in, or swallow. You may deny, twist, sneak, dive, and cover up as much as you will, but you shall not swindle me out of it, that you shall not.

Jac. We are not the only ones that have to bear this from you; for you also often preach, I understand, that the Calvinists have the women in common.

Fr. Corn. And so they do; for in the point of having the women in common they agree with the Anabaptists. Ah, bah, don’t I know what the Calvinists and Calvinistresses do when they blow out the candles after they have held their accursed, devilish supper. Bah, you want to teach me how to preach, I suppose; see.

Jac. If this were true, it would certainly now be known to all the world; for the Calvinists have had public churches, in which they have preached, and held the supper; and if they had undertaken to put forth such things in them, in regard to having the women in common, as you say, what strange things would be noised abroad through every country.

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Anabaptist, and will you now also begin to upbraid me with slandering the accursed Calves-tails,307 eh? Don’t I say that they do this together, after they have held their devil’s supper when the candles have been extinguished? bah, what strange things can be said of a matter which no one can see? But you Anabaptists, tell us something about your supper; or don’t you have any, I suppose, since you don’t know anything to say about sacraments? Hence, speak, and let us hear: What do you hold concerning the sacrament of the altar?

Jac. I have never seen nor read this name in the holy Scriptures; hence I can say nothing about it.

Fr. Corn. Fie, the devil and his mother are here again already. How would you have it called the supper, as the Beggars308 call it, I suppose, eh?

Jac. I have read much in the holy Scriptures concerning the breaking of bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22; Acts 2; 1 Cor. 11; but of the sacrament of the altar I have never read.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you certainly have the Scriptures at your finger ends; and because you Anabaptists will read nothing but simply the holy Scriptures, therefore it is, that you never read of a sacrament of the altar. For as I am informed by my lord, the provincial of the Augustinians, you flatly refuse to hear, by way of instruction, anything that the old fathers, or teachers of the holy Catholic church, write; as St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, St. Chrysostom, St. Bernard, St. Anselm, St. Bede, Doctor Sanctus, and many others, yea, such as are more ancient yet, as: Irenaeus, Cyprian, Basil, Cyril, and Tertullian. If you would read these, you would find the sacrament of the altar mentioned frequently by many different names, sometimes the eucharist, now a holocaust, then a sacrifice, oblation, etc. But you Anabaptists would far rather delve and root in the accursed, damnable books of your arch-heretic Menno Symons. And therefore you do not know anything of the sacrament of the altar—is this not a fine thing?

Jac. We are satisfied with the simple holy Scriptures; for all that is necessary for us to know for our salvation, we find abundantly contained in them, and we need not to search the doctrines of men.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, speak and let us hear, whether you also believe, that Christ is truly present in the consecrated host with his natural flesh and blood? Now, do you understand it better so?

Jac. Now I understand it much less yet, since nothing is taught in the holy Scriptures of a consecrated host; and therefore we also do not trouble ourselves with such things, but use in our church the memorials of the Lord’s body, as I told you.

Fr. Corn. Bah, what monsters are these memorials? This begins to sound quite Zuinglian and Calvinistic; and are you Anabaptists also Sacramentarians—I suppose so. Bah, what is it about these memorials? Let us hear once.

Jac. The memorials are bread and wine, which we use in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, because Christ in his last supper commands us, that we are to break and eat the bread in remembrance of his body, which was broken on the cross; and that we are to distribute the cup with wine, and all drink out of it, in remembrance of his blood, which was shed for many, for the remission of sins.

Fr. Corn. Is it possible! you are fine fellows with your memorials. My lords, what do you think of this accursed, hellish devil’s crew? for they are Anabaptists and Sacramentarians. Bah! Jesus, Jesus, worthy mother of God, protect us; what abominableness this is! My, my, my, oh, oh, oh, oh! My lords, now you can well hear, what a Beelzebub brood and hellish generation you have here in Flanders, in the city of Bruges, and you sometimes ridicule my sermons yet, when I preach against these accursed heretics, and say: “That lousy little fool, the crazy friar Cornelis is always engaged with the heretics in his pulpit.” Hear now for yourselves, whether I have not just reason for it. And now listen, you Sacramentarian: Why then did not Christ say, “Take and eat; this bread is a memorial of my body, and this wine is a memorial of my blood?” But he said expressly: “Take and eat; this is my body.” Further: “Drink ye all out of this cup; this is my blood.” Answer me once in regard to this, * * *

Jac. I am heartily sorry that you always get so incensed and excited at my answers, and that you do not consider, that Paul says to Titus, in the first chapter that a teacher must not be angry, snappish or contentious.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, hold your tongue, and answer me without much talk or cackling.

Jac. Christ did not mean that the apostles should eat his body, which the day after was crucified; nor drink his blood, which the next day was shed; but his meaning was, that his body was food for the soul, and his blood drink for the soul, even as bread and wine are food and drink for the body; hence he said: Take and eat; my body is this, or, my body is such as this bread is, namely, food.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, what madness this is; now I could jump out of my skin for anger, yea, should I not? For Christ did not say: My body is this, or my body is such. How you heretics pervert and twist the naked, plain words, This is my body.

Jac. It means the same to say: This is my body, or, my body is this, when regard is had to Christ’s true meaning; for since his body was food, therefore he took bread and said: My body is this, or this is my body, namely, food.

Fr. Corn. Is this not enough to make one crazy?—God bless us again, and the worthy mother of God. Bah, did not Christ say: Take and eat; this is my body, which is given for you. Now, was it the same body, which was given them? then it was not bread which he gave his apostles to eat. Let us hear what you will answer to this.

Jac. Even as I answered, that Christ says, that the same body which was given for us is food for the soul, as bread is for the body of man.

Fr. Corn. Bah, what mischief is this, and shall I not be able to advance something against you, by which I can once stop your accursed mouth? Did not St. Paul say, in the eleventh chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians: Whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord? And should it be only a bit of common, simple bread, and a draught of stale wine? Why does St. Paul make such an exceeding great matter of it, and say, that a man should examine himself, and eat worthily of that bread, and drink worthily of that cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. Bah, you accursed Sacramentarian, is it still only a bit of common bread, or a memorial, eh?

Jac. The unworthy eating of the bread and the unworthy drinking of the cup of which Paul writes, lies in our conscience; for if I want to unite with the body of Christ, and with many brethren become one bread, and am at variance or in contention with any brother, I eat unworthily of that bread, and drink unworthily of the cup of the Lord; I shall thereby be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. Therefore let a man examine himself, how he stands with his brother; for he that comes hypocritically, with a gnawing, troubled conscience, and eats and drinks unworthily, the same eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning that the body of the Lord in the breaking of the bread (which we break) becomes one with, or is participated in by us; and that the cup of blessing (which we bless) becomes one with, or is participated in by us in the blood of Christ, as Paul writes in the tenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians.

Fr. Corn. There you are caught; for if it is a communion or participation in the body and blood of Christ, it is certainly no longer bread and wine, I think.

Jac. Can you not understand, that by the participation in the broken bread we only signify and remember, that through the breaking of the body of Christ on the cross, and through the participation in the cup, we are become partakers of his blood, and have thereby obtained communion with his body. As we all become partakers of, and have communion in, a bread which we break and eat, so we being many are one body with the body of Christ, because we all are partakers of, and have communion in, his body, which we signify and remember, when we make ourselves partakers and communicants of one bread. This is the meaning of Paul in the tenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, now I understand clearly, out and out, that you Anabaptists are so wicked, false, vile and crafty sacramentarians, as the * * * calves-tails can be; for the sacrament with you is nothing but a representation, signification and remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, and only a bit of bread and a cup of wine. I * * * upon your bit of bread, and your cup, by which you would represent, signify and remember the body of Christ, see.

Jac. I beg pardon, this is strange language concerning the ordinance of Christ; for he has nevertheless instituted the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup for our remembrance. But if the bread is Christ himself, as you say, how shall it be to us a remembrance of Christ, who, according to your saying, is present there himself? And if you get so angry at me, because I called the communion only bread and the cup, you must also be very angry at Paul, because, 1 Cor. 11:26, he writes: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,” etc.

Fr. Corn. Silence! not so much talk; hold your tongue. For though St. Paul calls the sacrament of the altar so, it was nevertheless Christ himself, as he was born of his blessed mother, and died on the cross, see.

Jac. This is a strange notion of yours; for if it is Christ himself as he died on the cross, then it must also be Christ himself as he rose from the dead, and ascended up to heaven.

Fr. Corn. Yea, in troth, and as he sits at the right hand of his Father, see.

Jac. Why then did Paul say to the Corinthians: “As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, shew ye the Lord’s death till he come?” For if the bread had been Christ himself, then the Corinthians might well have said: It is no longer necessary to show the Lord’s death; for he is now come; he is here; this bread which we break and eat is Christ himself.

Fr. Corn. Bah, talk and chatter as much as you will; I flatly say, that the Corinthians ate Christ with skin and hair, as we Catholics also do. bah, see.

Jac. Yet Christ says, John 16:28: I leave the world, and go to the Father. Again, verse 5: But now I go my way to him that sent me. Again, verse 7: Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Again, verse 10; Because I go to the Father, and ye see me no more. Again, John 12:8: Me ye have not always.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you begin to preach again, do you? And do you think that you can spirit away and wrest from me everything? but wait, wait, I shall come at you in another way. It is John here, John there; but why do you not tell me of what John writes in the sixth chapter, where Christ says: The bread that I will give is my flesh, eh?

Jac. Christ says in the same chapter, that he is the bread which came down from heaven. Here he does not speak of a bread that grows out of the earth.

Fr. Corn. Bah, is this not a wicked, vile, crafty and cunning heretic; for hear how the devil wags his accursed tongue, my, my, my!

Jac. Yet I do not say anything but what Christ himself says and means; for these are his own words, throughout the whole chapter: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” Again: “I am the bread of life.” Again: “Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Again, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” Again: “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? what and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the Spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6.”

From all these words of Christ we are to understand, that by eating his flesh he means nothing else but his word, or his doctrine, by which we attain to the faith, without which faith in him we cannot be saved, and live forever.

Fr. Corn. Bah, are you done preaching now, eh? Did it not seem to you that you were standing in the Gruthuysbusch and preached, eh? But, O, you audacious heretic, show it more fully, that Christ means nothing else by this eating of his flesh, than his word or doctrine. Bah, would you array yourself against the holy council of Trent? For there all the cardinals, bishops and fathers understood these words of Christ with reference to the worthy sacrament of the altar. Hence, let us hear, how you will prove the contrary, you accursed Anabaptist and Sacramentarian that you are.

Jac. You have heard, that Christ in his sermon said to the Jews: “The bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. I am that bread of life: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.” Now you must understand, that if Christ by this bread, or by this flesh, meant his natural body, as you say, all men to whom you, according to your saying, give it to eat, would live forever, and none of them would be damned; for if they had once eaten it, they would dwell in Christ and Christ would dwell in them.

Fr. Corn. Bah, hear once, my lords, is it not astonishing, how this lousy weaver, this chandler, comes by this great wisdom. Bah! this filthy * * * bishop, Jacob, would be wiser than all our holy cardinals, bishops, and theologians, or doctors of divinity, who, in the holy council of Trent, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, unanimously concluded, that all the words of Christ, in the sixth chapter of St. John are to be understood with reference to the holy, worthy sacrament of the altar. And now this * * * bishop Jacob the weaver would like to make us believe, that Christ by his blood meant nothing else than his word and preaching; is this not a fine thing?

Clerk of the criminal court. Suffer yourself to be instructed, Jacob, and do not argue so much.

Recorder. I also desire this of you, Jacob, and do not rely so much upon your own wisdom.

Jac. I beg your pardon, my lords, I do not rely upon my own wisdom, but I rely upon the words of Christ.

Fr. Corn. Bah, do you? bah, you do what I will not mention. Bah, you cunning, vile, crafty heretic in quoting the words of Christ, you have very slyly left out, and omitted to say, that in the same chapter he also says: “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” Bah, do you think you can deceive us by such rascality, eh?

Jac. I have not omitted these words of Christ from craftiness or rascality, but they did not enter my mind; and it is not necessary for me to omit these words, since they tend to confirm the answer I gave you. Namely, if Christ by the eating and drinking means his own natural flesh and blood, as you say, they will all live forever, and not die, or be damned, who have once eaten and drunk in your church, no matter what evil-doers they may be; for you deny the sacrament of the altar to no one; every one that comes partakes of it, and there also come drunkards, gluttons, misers, cheats, swearers, blasphemers, contentious, envious, and unrighteous persons, whores, rogues, adulterers, murderers, and many other wicked people, concerning whom Paul says, 1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven.

Fr. Corn. Bah, but those who first confess themselves, and are absolved by the priest, and then worthily receive the holy sacrament, they will live forever, see.

Jac. Christ does not speak here of eating and drinking worthily or unworthily; but he says, that all who eat this flesh, and drink this blood shall live forever.

Fr. Corn. But St. Paul speaks about eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ unworthily, to the Corinthians, in the eleventh chapter of his first epistle, see there once.

Jac. Hence the breaking of bread of which Paul writes, is another ordinance of Christ, different from this.

Fr. Corn. But you block-headed bishop, Christ with these words, in John 6, did not yet institute the sacrament of the altar, but promised to institute it; saying: The bread that I will give (that is, which he will give when he institutes the mass at his last supper) is my flesh, and the cup of wine which I will give is my blood, not wine nor any substance of wine; so the bread also is no substance of bread; but my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Bah, now where are you? what can you reply to this? now you are caught.

Jac. In regard to this, I reply again, that if Christ means such flesh as you according to your saying, give men to eat, not one of these will die or be damned, according to the words of Christ, but they will all live forever.

Fr. Corn. Bah, for this reason I again ask you, for whom confession and absolution are instituted? for the pigs, I suppose, eh?

Jac. You may very likely suppose this. The blood of Christ was shed for men for the remission of sins, as he says in his last supper, which you now begin to call the institution of the mass. Matthew 26:28.

Fr. Corn. Yes, the supper was the institution of the mass in spite of your teeth. Let us hear once, what you think of the mass.

Jac. Is your mass as something different yet, than your sacrament of the altar?

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, you are a preacher, a teacher, yea, a bishop (though you deny it) of the Anabaptists, and do not know yet, that the mass is something different than the sacrament of the altar. Bah! shame upon you. * * *

Jac. Alas! because these are all things which are neither mentioned nor known in the holy Scriptures therefore I do not understand them.

Fr. Corn. * * * Though they are things which are not so named in the holy Scriptures, they are nevertheless known in the Scriptures; for the mass is a sacrifice or offering, in which the priest sacrifices and offers up the real flesh and blood of Christ for the living, and for the dead, or for the souls that are in purgatory. Bah, do you understand now what the mass is, eh!

Jac. I do not believe that you can sacrifice and offer up Christ again. But I believe, that Christ himself was an offering on the cross for the living and the dead: for Paul writes to the Hebrews, in the ninth chapter, that Christ by his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, [and the ashes of a heifer] sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God?”

Fr. Corn. Bah, you have preached enough now; for my head begins to ache severely from it. Hence let us now dispute about Anabaptism and infant baptism, and be done with it. Speak, and let us hear why the sacrament of baptism is not necessary to children for their salvation, as you Anabaptists preach and teach; though ill betide you.

Jac. Christ says, Mark 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned. Now if one of the two were necessary to children for their salvation, faith is more necessary to them for salvation than baptism.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? and would you thus exclude from heaven all the poor, innocent children that die unbaptized in original sin? and would you relegate them with so many hundred thousand millions to hell, into eternal perdition, eh?

Jac. No, we do not want to do this: for we believe that infants are nevertheless saved, though they die unbaptized; for they are baptized and cleansed in the blood of Jesus Christ, as John says, in the first chapter (v. 7) of his first epistle: “The blood of Jesus Christ his son cleanseth us from all sin.” Christ, also (Matt. 19:14) says: “For of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Fr. Corn. Yes, if they are first washed and cleansed by baptism from original sin, which they have inherited from Adam; otherwise they go to the devil, into perdition, see.

Jac. Paul writes to the Corinthians, in his first epistle, in the fifteenth chapter (v. 22): “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Again, to the Romans, in the fifth chapter (verses 12,15); “As by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; so grace hath abounded by Jesus Christ.”

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, tush, much talk and little information, these are all things that do not concern unbaptized and uncircumcised children. Hence I tell you plainly, that all the children that in the Old Testament died without circumcision, and now in the New Testament without baptism, and will yet die, are damned; and he that says otherwise is a heretic. But now, since you Anabaptists so little esteem baptism, that you allow children to die unbaptized, thinking that they will be saved nevertheless, why then do you who have been baptized once have yourselves rebaptized, and teach others, that they must also suffer themselves to be rebaptized, if they would be saved. Ah, bah, is this not a hellish, devilish madness; frenzy, demonianism, and fascination? * * *

Jac. We, according to the command of Christ, baptize the believing, but you, contrary to his commands, baptize the unbelieving.

Fr. Corn. Indeed, Anabaptist? Bah, though the children are not believing, they must nevertheless be baptized, if they are to be saved; for in the third chapter of St. John’s gospel we read that Christ said to Nicodemus: Verily, verily, except every man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Bah, is this not saying plainly enough, that children must be baptized, though they are yet unbelieving? why then would you Anabaptists upbraid us by saying that we baptize the unbelieving, and that you baptize the believing? Ha! accursed Anabaptist that you are! Bah, answer me now in regard to this. * * *

Jac. Water baptism signifies the washing of regeneration in which Christ baptizes with the Spirit, as John the Baptist said, Mark 1: “I have baptized you with water; but one that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.” Also in Matthew 3, and Luke 3, we read: “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Again, John 1:33. “But he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” From this we can hear and understand, that water baptism does not give an entrance into the kingdom of God, but only the baptism by the Holy Ghost with which Christ baptizes.

Fr. Corn. Bah, in this you lie, you Anabaptist, with your accursed mouth, for Christ says: “Of water and of the Spirit;” hence the baptism of the Holy Ghost does not alone make the entrance into the kingdom of God, but the water and of the Spirit, see.

Jac. Then I must ask you, whether none were ever baptized by God and by Christ in the Holy Ghost, without water?

Fr. Corn. What a devilish question this is; bah, who is there that could answer to such an accursed question? Bah, see once, with what this * * * bishop, Jacob the weaver, does now come to vex and torment us. Bah, answer yourself.

Jac. Well then, when Christ saw and heard, that Nicodemus was so greatly astonished at the words which he spake to him, and that Nicodemus could not understand his words, and asked, how these things were possible, Christ answered him and said: “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” From these words of Christ we can understand, that Christ did not speak of baptism, but that he spoke to him of things that were comprehended in the law of the Israelites, namely, the regeneration by the Holy Ghost, in which all the holy fathers and elect of God, before the coming of Christ, were regenerated or baptized. For if Christ had spoken of water baptism, as you papists think, Nicodemus might have said to Christ: I have never read of a water baptism in the whole law. But now Christ spoke to him of things that were written in the law, or in the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, though he called them by another name, namely, a regeneration of the water and of the Spirit, though the Holy Ghost is therein called a water. But Christ thereby wanted to prove to Nicodemus, in order to astonish him in regard to a matter which he ought to have known and understood very well, since he was a master of Israel. Behold, for this reason the regeneration in which Christ baptizes with the Holy Ghost is only signified by the outward baptism of water.

Fr. Corn. Bah, Jesus, Jesus, how well you can talk, how well your tongue is hung! Bah, never in all my life did I hear the Scriptures expounded so strangely, contrary to the views of our mother, the holy Catholic Roman church, and the ancient teachers and fathers. Bah, now I am not surprised, that the Anabaptists have made you their teacher, preacher and bishop; for to hear such sermons, the people of Bruges ran at so tremendous a rate to the Gruthuysbosch. But I must ask you one more question: When you Anabaptists have children that remain simple or idiots, and they grow to be twenty, thirty, forty, yea, eighty, or ninety years old, do you allow them to die unbaptized, because they cannot comprehend your belief and doctrine? for one that remains all his life simple, or an idiot, can certainly not be taught. What do you do with them at any rate? let us hear once, but briefly; for your long talk begins to be very irksome to these good sirs, as well as to me, and it is getting late, and I am tired, that I am.

Jac. To such innocent, simple and childish persons belongs the kingdom of heaven, as Christ says, Matt. 19:14.

Fr. Corn. Bah! tush, tush, tush! I say that it is not necessary to teach men first their confession of faith, before they are baptized, as you Anabaptists teach and do, when you baptize, or rebaptize; for though the infants are unlearned in the Christian faith, we Catholics baptize them upon the faith of the holy church, and because they have believing parents; therefore they need not be taught first, that they need not.

Jac. Yet Christ says, in the sixteenth chapter of Mark: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Here certainly preaching and believing are mentioned before baptizing. Again, Matt. 28, Christ says: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them,” etc. Here certainly teaching is mentioned before baptizing.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush! you are beginning to preach again, are you? Hence one more question, and then enough. In good faith, if an unbaptized person of your Anabaptistic church were instructed far enough in your devil’s faith, to receive baptism, and he should come to be baptized, and should become so sick and faint as to lose all self-consciousness, and could therefore not confess his faith before or in baptism, would you also suffer him to die unbaptized, I suppose you would? hence your nonsense and twiddle-twaddle deserve no respect or regard.

Jac. Though he should die in that faintness, unbaptized, he would be saved through his faith; for Christ (Mark 16:16) says: “But he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Fr. Corn. Well, I have no desire to dispute any longer with you. I shall go my way, and let the executioner dispute with you, with a burning fagot * * * and afterwards the devil in hell, with burning pitch, brimstone and tar, see.

Jac. No; for Paul writes (2 Cor. 5:1): “If our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.”

Fr. Corn. Bah! in hell, in hell. Expect nothing else than to go through this temporal fire into the eternal; hell yawns and gasps for your soul, you accursed, damned Anabaptist that you are, see.

DISPUTATION BETWEEN HERMAN VLECKWIJK, IMPRISONED BY THE LORDS OF THE COUNTRY VAN DEN VRYE IN BRUGES, AND FRIAR CORNELIS, IN THE PRESENCE OF MR. JAN VAN DAM, ON THE 1OTH OF MAY, A. D. 1569.

Fr. Corn. I would say, Good-day, Herman: but I am quite wrought up and angry yet from yesterday, at your accursed hedge-preacher, or teacher, who has so wickedly seduced, deceived, crazed, bedeviled and bewitched you and your fellow Anabaptists by his damnable, hellish, Anabaptistic heresies, out there in the miserable Gruthuysbosch. Hence I must now come here and try whether I can draw you away again from this Anabaptism, and convert you to our Catholic Christian faith; have you a mind for it, or not? Let us hear now.

Herm. To judge from your speaking, I should think that you are angry, and if you had not told me yourself, I would have thought, that you wanted to frighten me. But why are you so angry at that friendly, pleasant man, who I think did not give you one hard word?

Fr. Corn. He nevertheless called me a papist once or twice; but I do not care * * * for that; but I am very angry that he would in no wise suffer himself to be converted from his accursed Anabaptism and all other accursed heresies, in regard to which I have spent so much labor in vain; and the most vexatious of all is, that though I so well showed, and convinced him of, his bad, evil, wicked, false, heretical faith, as these good lords have well heard, it was all of no avail; ill betide him.

Herm. I think, that he nevertheless clearly showed you with the holy Scriptures, that his faith is in Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God; whereby then could you show him, that his faith is bad, evil, wicked, false, and heretical, as you say?

Fr. Corn. Fie, alas! I already hear by this answer, that I shall win no laurels in the way of converting you. But in good faith, do you people think it enough, only to believe in Jesus Christ? Ah, bah, all the devils of hell believe in Jesus Christ; bah, see here now, what we are tormented with. Bah, you ought to, and must also, on pain of the damnation of your soul, believe in all the other articles of the Christian faith, and the excellent, holy institutions of our mother the holy Roman Church, which by our holy fathers, the popes, have in all general holy councils, been ordained and decreed to be believed and observed. But you Anabaptists neither believe nor observe anything of them, except it be very plainly stated in the holy Scriptures; for if there are any matters contained in the Scriptures, that seem somewhat obscure to you, you will by no means believe them; as, for instance, all that is contained in the holy Scriptures concerning prayer for the refreshing and deliverance of the souls in purgatory; nor all that is said in them respecting the seven sacraments; nor all that they say concerning priestly authority; nor all that is found in them regarding the transubstantiation, or change, of the bread and wine into the real flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, in the Sacrament of the altar; nor all that they contain concerning the perpetual virginity and purity of Mary, the blessed mother of God. No, these and very many other holy articles you will not believe; yea, what is still more abominable, the worthy blessed mother of God, whom you ought and are in duty bound to honor, serve, invoke, and entreat, that she would intercede for you with her dear Son, her you Anabaptists do not esteem better than your filthy, * * * sinful wives. And in like manner you despise and reject all the holy saints and saintesses whom you ought to honor, fast to them, celebrate, invoke, and entreat, that they would stand as advocates or mediators between God and you, and intercede for you; bah! is this not a fine thing? Bah, you are silent: answer me, why you heretics bear such enmity and hatred to the worthy, blessed mother of God, and to all God’s saints; let us hear now.

Herm. That we should hate Mary the mother of Jesus Christ, and the saints of God, this be far from us; but that we do not invoke and entreat them that they should stand as advocates or mediators between God and us, this is because John, in the second chapter of his first epistle says: “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” In like manner, Paul writes to Timothy, in the second chapter of his first epistle: “There is one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus: who gave himself a ransom for all.” In the same manner he also writes to the Hebrews, in the ninth chapter. But we do not hate our enemies; how then should we hate God’s saints, our fellow brethren and sisters in the Lord?

Fr. Corn. Indeed? if they are your fellow brethren and sisters in the Lord, why then do you bear such enmity and hatred to them, that you help burn or destroy their relics or bones, and break their images to pieces, wherever you have been able to get at them? is this not a fine brotherhood and sisterhood? accursed Anabaptists that you are.

Herm. We do not meddle with your affairs; if you would leave us alone in our faith and in our walk and conversation, as we leave you alone in your religion, and with your images, relics or dead men’s bones, your hands would remain unstained with and innocent of our blood. But you generation of Cain first killed the saints of God, and then take them to exalt and honor them with fasting and celebrating, and erect to them idolatrous images, which they themselves despised and rejected, and you honor their bones, as Christ says, Luke 11:47: Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets: and your fathers killed them. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres. Therefore also saith the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: that the blood of all the prophets [which was shed from the foundation of the world,] may be required of this generation; from the blood of Abel. Matt. 23.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! would you * * * accursed Anabaptists compare yourself to the prophets, apostles, and to God’s holy martyrs, popes and priests, whose blood was shed for the Catholic, Christian faith, of which you Anabaptists are now such enemies, that you through the rejection of the sacrament of the priesthood reject, not only the six other sacraments, and all our Christian ceremonies and acts of worship, but also all the articles of the Christian, Catholic faith, as I have said; therefore you are put to death; do you understand this, you uncouth, blockheaded Anabaptist that you are?

Herm. However uncouth and blockheaded I am, I understand very well that you put us to death because we do not believe or observe these popish, or Romish, church articles, part of which you have mentioned. And you think that you do God service by killing us for it, as Christ says (John 16:2,3): “They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.”

Fr. Corn. Bah! you bewitched and devil-possessed Anabaptist, would you also fain claim this for your side, would you? Bah, and would you charge and upbraid us priests and Catholics with such things, would you? Bah, and would you also say that we priests know neither God nor his Son Jesus Christ, would you? Ah, bah! who knows God and Jesus Christ better than we Catholic priests? Hence this is all spoken concerning the Jewish priests, and concerning the Anabaptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, and other heretics, who in France and Spain in these lands and elsewhere, so tyrannically persecute, trouble, torment, and martyrize us priests, because we have the true knowledge of God and Christ, see.

Herm. It is to be feared that Christ will not know you, though you think that you know him so very well; for you are of so many different orders and rules. You are a Franciscan, the other an Augustinian, the other a Carmelite, the other a Jacobine or Dominican, the other a Benedictine; yea, innumerable are the orders and sects into which you are divided, and each has its special ceremonies and rules, according to which he must live, of which not a word is found in the teaching of Christ; how then shall he know you!

Fr. Corn. Indeed? you hellish, devilish Anabaptist, though we are so diverse in regard to orders, rules and ceremonies, are we ecclesiastics not all comprehended in one sacrament of priesthood, eh?

Herm. Your sacrament of priesthood is nevertheless an article like all the other articles of your faith, of which nothing is found written in the holy Scriptures, hence I have no knowledge of, nor faith in it.

Fr. Corn. Ah, you accursed Anabaptist, answer me then, why God the Father should not be willing to know us, who are his priests, for do we not daily, in the Mass, offer up his Son Jesus Christ, in flesh and blood? Bah, whom should they both know better than us, their priests? What will you say now, eh?

Herm. How shall I here tell you the secret of the mass? I do not myself know it; but you know it very well.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? if you do not know the secret of the mass, how comes it then that you heretics undertake to describe such an accursed “Death-bed of the mass?” in which it says, that the mass, as it were, is lying sick of a putrid ulcer, which she has in her canon, and of which she will have to die. Bah! and do you accursed heretics then not know the secret of the mass, as you call it? Bah! may the devil skin you with the “Death-bed of the mass,” accursed Anabaptists that you are.

Herm. We have not composed or written the book of the “Death-bed of the mass,” and do you take it so ill that I speak of the secret of the mass? is it not a common saying, also among the papists when they are asked in regard to something which they do not wish to tell, they generally answer: “I do not want to tell the secret of the mass.”

Fr. Corn. Bah! the devil and his mother have introduced this saying among the laity. I would that all who use it would sink together through the earth into the abyss of hell, that I would.

Recorder. O father Cornelis, the people say it without thinking any evil by it; I have frequently heard priests say it, and to confess the truth, I have often said it myself, without any evil thought or reflection.

Fr. Corn. Well, it is enough of it; but, you Anabaptist, answer me whether you believe, that the real flesh and blood of Christ Jesus are offered up by us priests in the mass, let us hear.

Herm. You must ask me concerning things that are contained in the holy Scriptures; for I have not studied your faith or religion.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? You crazy, bedeviled Anabaptist, and would you only be asked concerning things that are expressly contained in the holy Scriptures? Come on then, now I will soundly ask you in regard to things that are most clearly contained in the holy Scriptures. Bah! I have heard it said, that you have grown-up children running about at home, that are still unbaptized, nevertheless Christ, in the third chapter of John, says to Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, except every man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Bah, is this not something that is contained in the holy Scriptures, eh?

Herm. When the apostles, according to the command of Christ (Matt. 28), went and taught all nations to believe in Jesus Christ before they baptize them, did the converts to the faith, in the meantime, while they were being instructed, also go about unbaptized at home?

Fr. Corn. Bah, and if your children should die in the meantime, would they not go to the devil in hell, I suppose?

Herm. No, no more than the children or converts to the faith in the time of the apostles.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! that was another thing; those children were circumcised, and thereby they were saved, though they died unbaptized; bah, here you are in a corner, happen what will, yes, yes, yes!

Herm. Those children were not all circumcised; for the faith in Jesus Christ was preached and taught also among the uncircumcised gentiles; now I am out of the corner again.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? I shall put you in the corner again. Bah! as the children of the uncircumcised Gentiles, that died without baptism, went to the devil, so your children that die without baptism also go into eternal perdition; do you understand this?

Herm. Our children that die before baptism certainly do not go into eternal perdition, any more than did the children of the Old Testament, that died uncircumcised before the eighth day.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! do you think that the children of the Old Testament, that died uncircumcised before the eighth day, are saved? bah, this were a fine thing.

Herm. Yes, this we think, without once doubting it, and I am surprised to hear you doubt it.

Fr. Com. Bah, what do you make of the original sin then, which the children inherit from Adam and Eve, eh?

Herm. What do you make of the death of Christ? for John the Baptist said: “Behold, the Lamb of God, which beareth away the sin of the world.” John 1:29.

Fr. Com. Bah, Christ bears away all the sin of the world, as you Anabaptists understand, think and believe. Bah, who then shall be damned? no one, I suppose.

Herm. Christ says in the sixteenth chapter of Mark: “He that believeth not shall be damned;” but he nowhere says: He that is not baptized (understand, in infancy) shall be damned.

Fr. Corn. Bah, here you lie with your vile, false, lying mouth; for did I not tell you, that in the third chapter of St. John it is written, that Christ said to Nicodemus: Verily, verily, except every man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God? bah! here I have certainly cornered you, have I not, eh?

Herm. No; for Christ there speaks of no external baptism, nor does he mention baptism; but he speaks of the regeneration which is performed by the Spirit of God, who is sometimes also called a water in the holy Scriptures. For thus says the Lord by the prophet Isaiah in the forty-fourth chapter (v. 3): “I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed.” Again, by the prophet Ezekiel, in the thirty-sixth chapter (verses 25,26): “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put within you.” Again, in the thirty-ninth chapter (v. 29), the Lord says by Ezekiel: “I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel.” Again, by the prophet Joel, in the second chapter (v. 28): “Then will I pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” etc.

Fr. Corn. Well, all this is done through the sacrament of baptism, when the children are baptized; for then the devil is exorcised by the priest, and they are cleansed from the original sin, inherited from Adam and Eve, and they obtain a new heart and a new spirit; bah, thus does God pour or shed his Spirit upon all flesh; you will not cheat me out of this—you are cornered and remain cornered, see!

Herm. I tell you again, that Christ, when he talked with Nicodemus, meant such a regeneration as does not concern external baptism, nor does it children; but it concerns the true believers in Christ, who are begotten according to the will of God, by the word of truth, as James says in the first chapter. Again, Peter, in the first chapter of his first epistle, says: “See that you love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” Of similar Scriptures which do not concern little children or external baptism, there are more yet.

Fr. Corn. Bah, but if the regeneration of water and of the Spirit does not concern children, they must certainly and unmistakably go to the devil; for you acknowledge yourself, that he who does not believe will be damned. Bah, children do certainly not believe as you also say. And when they besides remain unbaptized, and die thus, they must surely be damned; for by what other way could they be saved, eh?

Herm. By the death of Christ, as I have told you. And Christ also says (Matt. 5:18,19), that to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.

Fr. Corn. Yes, these are the same arguments with which your hedge-preacher yesterday made my spleen run over. Bah, what does all this disputing and arguing amount to; if you would suffer yourself to be converted, you must be willing to be taught, and brought to the Catholic, Christian faith of our mother, the holy Roman church, and to her baptism and religion. Bah, why will you trust so much in the heresies of that damned arch-heretic, Menno Simons, and so firmly rely upon this bewitched hedge-preacher? Bah, why do you not believe me as well as that Menno Simons? for I am as learned, and have read as much, and certainly much more, as this * * * bishop, Jacob the weaver, and as a Dietrick Phillips, and an Ubbo Frisius, and such devil’s brood, I suppose, eh?

Herm. I trust (or build) not upon Menno Simons, nor upon any man; for the prophet Jeremiah says in his seventeenth chapter (v. 5): Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man.

Fr. Corn. This is very true; in this you say very well, see; if you begin to talk like this, I feel quite hopeful, that I will convert you with the help of God, from this miserable Anabaptism. So I will first prevail upon you, to renounce the same, and to have your unbaptized children baptized in the Catholic church, by a priest, as a good Christian is in duty bound to do, see. Well, Herman, what think you of this, eh?

Herm. I do not think that you are the man that will convert me to your mother, the Roman church, or who will bring me to it, that I shall have my unbaptized children baptized in the papistic church.

Fr. Corn. Ah bah, how do you talk in this strain again; a thousand devils (God bless us), what has come over you? It seems, as though he would trust no longer in Menno Simons, nor in any other man; but as soon as I begin with kindness and friendliness to admonish him to renounce Anabaptism, and to have his unbaptized children baptized in our Catholic church, he instantly pipes another tune. Is this not a fine thing? If you will not be converted, and have your unbaptized children baptized in our church, after the Catholic rite, you can be burned alive at the stake, see.

Herm. This you papists could also do just as well, even if I turned from my faith, and had my unbaptized children baptized in your church.

Fr. Corn. Be sure, we could; but we would give you the sword. If you will suffer yourself to be converted with kindness, I insure you the sword, that I do.

Herm. For what purpose should you give me a sword? it would be of no use to me, for we use no swords.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, tush! you well understand what I mean by it: you would only be beheaded with the sword, see.

Herm. After I should have truly and unfeignedly confessed, that I had erred in the faith, and after I should have my unbaptized children baptized in your church, would I then, according to your saying or meaning, not be a good, upright Christian?

Fr. Corn. Jesus, yes, Herman, and should you not in every manner, yes, you, faithful Herman, be as good a Christian as any one can be? This is what I like to hear, see.

Herm. And would you papists make no sin of it, to shed the blood of such a good, upright Christian?

Fr. Corn. Fie, tush, tush, tush, bah, is it nothing else? You would have to die nevertheless, because of your having apostatized from the Catholic Christian faith, and having yourself rebaptized, see.

Herm. The shepherd of the hundred sheep, of whom Christ speaks in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, did nevertheless not cut the throat of the lost or strayed sheep, when he had found it; but he laid it upon his shoulders, and carried it home rejoicing.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! what is the use of all this raving and prating? if you want to be converted, be converted, and recant; what shall I say of this? Bah, I should sooner convert the devil in hell and his mother, than I could convert one of these obdurate, petrified Anabaptists; this I swear to you, that I do.

Herm. Therefore I said, that you are not the man who shall be able to prove to me from the holy Scriptures, that my faith, and my baptism, which I received upon confession of my faith in Jesus Christ, is evil; how then should you be able to convert me from it?

Fr. Corn. Indeed? but what devil in hell makes you people so presumptuous as that you have yourselves rebaptized, who have once been baptized? Show me once from the holy Scriptures, that a Christian that has once been baptized is to have himself rebaptized. Bah, I stake my neck, that you will not be able to show this to me with the holy Scriptures, see.

Herm. Alas! poor Friar Cornelis, you have already lost your neck; for in the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles it is written: “And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus; and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now, poor Friar Cornelis, here you lose your neck.”

Fr. Corn. Enough, ah, bah, if they had been rightly baptized, Paul would not have caused them to be rebaptized. No, I have not yet lost my neck, that I have not.

Herm. Well then, I answer the same: if I had been rightly baptized, I would also not have had myself rebaptized. But now you can well hear, that you have unjustly so often called me an accursed Anabaptist.

Fr. Corn. But you were certainly very well baptized; for the priest had baptized you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And afterwards, only six or seven years ago, you had yourself baptized again; are you therefore not an accursed, damned Anabaptist, eh?

Herm. I was not baptized upon my faith in Jesus Christ, but in my unbelief; and when I heard and understood this, I had myself baptized upon my faith, as Christ himself has said in the sixteenth chapter of Mark: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Am I therefore an accursed, damned Anabaptist?

Fr. Corn. Yes, you are and remain a damned, accursed Anabaptist, if you do not become converted. For St. Paul says, that there is but one God, one faith, and one baptism; is it not Anabaptism then, to have one’s self rebaptized?

Herm. For this reason you papists are justly (according to your saying) called Anabaptists by the Calvinists, because you have rebaptized in your churches their children, that had been baptized once out here in their preaching.

Fr. Corn. O you awkward, block-headed Anabaptist, those children were not rightly baptized, and you know yourself well enough how to prove from the nineteenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, that St. Paul caused those who had not been rightly baptized under John’s baptism to be rebaptized. Bah, are we Catholics Anabaptists? I suppose so, * * * What shall I say now, does it now become fool’s work altogether with the sacrament of baptism—see wherewith we are now tormented and vexed; would you accursed Anabaptist now begin to call us Catholics Anabaptists? Bah! * * *

Herm. I do not call you Anabaptists; for I only say, that the Calvinists call you Anabaptists, because you rebaptize their children, which they had once baptized.

Fr. Corn. * * *

(He spoke here only vile words of abuse.)

Herm. Our baptism is nevertheless administered according to the institution of Christ; for in our church the believing are baptized, but you baptize the unbelieving.

Fr. Corn. Bah, the sponsors believe in behalf of the children, until they are old enough to believe themselves, do you understand this?

Herm. No; I find nothing said in the Scriptures, about sponsors, nor about one man believing in behalf of another.

Fr. Corn. Bah, now you are clearly cornered; for does not St. Luke say in the fifth chapter, that Christ saw the faith of the bearers who let down the man afflicted with the palsy, through the roof with his couch, and that he therefore healed him and forgave his sins, eh? Bah, here for once I have clearly cornered you; get out if you can. Now you have spectacles on your nose, have you not, eh?

Herm. No; for from this it is not to be understood, that the man afflicted with the palsy did not himself believe, or was without faith, as are the children which you baptize.

Fr. Corn. Bah, the old fathers or teachers of our mother, the holy Roman Catholic church do nevertheless understand, that the bearers of the man afflicted with the palsy signify the sponsors, who hold the children when they are being baptized, and believe in behalf of the children, till these are old enough to believe for themselves; for to this end the sacrament of confirmation is instituted, to put the children, when they are old enough to believe themselves, in remembrance that they were baptized. Bah, I could very well show you this from the ancient fathers, but you Anabaptists will rely most firmly on the holy Scriptures alone, so that you will not once hearken to the ancient fathers or teachers of the holy church. Bah, it seems, as the provincial of the Augustinians tells me, that, when one begins to mention something to you from St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, or some other ancient fathers, that you people carry on in just such a crazy and ugly manner, as though one began to speak to you of the very devil—is this not a fine thing?

Herm. Because we wish to be only Christians, therefore we do not want to hearken to the teachings of the ancient fathers; for they describe popery, as of sponsors, of the sacrament of confirmation, and the whole popery which you follow and observe.

Fr. Corn. O you damned, accursed Anabaptist, do you call the sacrament of confirmation popery?

Herm. What else is it then? for I have never read in the holy Scriptures of the sacrament of confirmation.

Fr. Corn. Bah, and are so dull, awkward and block-headed, that you do not understand it, though you read of it; for confirmation means the imposition of hands, see.

Herm. Ah, does it mean this? pardon me, that through my awkwardness and dullness I do not understand such very high and fine Latin.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, did I say it is Latin, see here.

Herm. What language is it then? I certainly would like to know.

Fr. Corn. Bah, that I do not know myself; but we Catholics understand it by the word confirmation, the sacrament of confirmation, or the laying on of the hands of the bishop, when our bishops and suffragans confirm grown-up children or adults, as also the apostles did; hence it is that I say, that you sectarians read of many holy sacramental things in the Scriptures, which you do not understand, and therefore you do not know our sacrament of confirmation, that you do not.

Herm. If your bishops or suffragans by such confirmation and laying on of hands could give to the grown-up children and adults the Holy Ghost, and that they spake with tongues, and prophesied as did the apostles, and also those upon whom they laid their hands, then I should very well understand and know your confirmation.

Fr. Corn. Bah, there had to be miracles then, when the people did not believe yet, in order that they might believe the apostles; do you understand this, you stupid Anabaptist?

Herm. If Christ had commanded you to imitate such laying on of hands, he would also do those miracles through you. Hence, when your bishops do such miracles with their confirmation and imposition of hands, then I shall believe you too.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, tush, these are the same arguments and chatterings which also your accursed hedge-preacher advanced yesterday against the sacrament of confirmation, and the sacrament of extreme unction. Bah, though Christ himself did not command us to imitate it, the apostles commanded us to do it; for does not St. James, in the fifth chapter, command that when any one is sick, the priests of the church are to be sent for, to pray over him, and to anoint him with oil, eh?

Herm. The oil of which James writes must have been another oil than your oil; for with that the sick were anointed, that they should recover from their sickness, and they did recover from it. But you priests do the very opposite; for if you knew beforehand, that the sick should recover, and not die, you would not anoint them with oil; for you anoint no sick persons with oil except those who you think will die.

Fr. Corn. Bah, my lords, did I not well know, that it would be the same thing which it was yesterday with their hedge-preacher? Bah, I lay you a wager, that if I begin to prove to him, from the same fifth chapter of St. James, the sacrament of confession, he will also say, as his hedge-preacher said yesterday, that I also ought to confess my sins to him; just see, with what we are tormented and vexed.

Herm. Did this seem to you so strange an answer from him? for it is nevertheless written: “Confess your sins one to another.” But when you priests learn from people all that you wish to know, then you let them go, and do not yourselves confess to them who have confessed (as you call it) their sins to you.

Fr. Corn. Yes, we call it confession, and it is confession, and shall remain confession, in spite of your teeth. Ah, bah, would it not be a fine thing, if we priests also had to kneel down and confess ourselves to the laity; and would they have the power to absolve us from sin? I suppose so. Bah, what a fine absolution that would be! Bah, and if I here confess myself to you, would you be so presumptuous as to think that you have power to loose or forgive my sins, eh?

Herm. Such power as you or all priests have to forgive sin, all men have; for Christ says, Mark 11:25: “Forgive, if ye have aught against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” Again, Luke 6:37: “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Anabaptist, have you laymen priestly authority to forgive sin in confession? Bah, the forgiveness of sin of which Christ speaks, Mark 11; Luke 6, does not concern confession or absolution. * * * Bah, we priests have in the sacrament of confession and absolution a special priestly authority to forgive and to retain sin, that we do.

Herm. Whence do you priests get a special authority to forgive sin, more than we, whom you call laymen?

Fr. Corn. Bah, this special authority which Christ delivered to his vicar, St. Peter, and St. Peter left it to his vicars the popes, and the popes impart to us of that power, because they cannot themselves in person everywhere hear confession, and absolve, see.

Herm. That the popes and you priests have the special power to forgive and to retain sin, which Christ gave to Peter, this you will not be able to show to me with the holy Scriptures.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? O you accursed Anabaptist, the executioner will be able very well to show it to you, by kindling a good fire * * * and the very devils in hell will also well show it to you with burning pitch, brimstone, and tar in the fire of hell; this I swear to you, that I do.

Herm. You papists can demonstrate your faith, doctrine and religion with nothing better than with the executioner, and with sword, fire, rope and gallows; for these are the best demonstrations or proofs which you have, and thus your forefathers demonstrated their faith and doctrine to God’s prophets, to Christ, to his apostles, and to the saints of God, from the blood of Abel until now.

Fr. Corn. Ha, you hellish, devilish, damned, accursed Anabaptists, for what do you take our holy fathers the popes and us priests? may thunder and lightning kill, burn and pulverize you. Bah, that I should thus excite, exasperate and disquiet myself for such an accursed Anabaptist.

Clerk of the criminal court. Tush, tush, Father Cornelis, and Herman, speak gently with each other.

Fr. Corn. Yes indeed, be gentle towards such bedeviled, bewitched, heretics, who do not believe anything. In good faith, do you Anabaptists then go thus unconfessed and unabsolved to your supper? I suppose so; for you regard it but as a bit of simple common bread, and a little draught of common, flat wine. The transubstantiation in the sacrament of the altar with you is only popery, yea, sorcery, and we priests are regarded as sorcerers by you, because we adjure and conjure the true flesh and blood of Christ in the host and in the cup, as you Sacramentarians say, ill betide you.

Herm. Such confession, or absolution, or sacrament of the altar we do not use in our church, but we observe such forgiveness of sins, as Christ commands us, Mark 11; and Luke 6, and such breaking of bread, and distribution of the cup, as he in his last supper commands us to do for his remembrance.

Fr. Corn. Bah, but with that forgiveness of sins Christ means this when your neighbor has done aught amiss to you; but I ask concerning the sins which you people have sinned against God, whether you go with these unconfessed and unabsolved to your devil’s supper, eh?

Herm. We pray as Christ has taught us, Matthew 6:12. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” And we use no devil’s supper.

Fr. Corn. Your breaking of bread, and distribution of the cup is the devil’s supper of which Paul writes in the tenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians: Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils. But the cup of blessing which we bless, that is, we Catholics, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? Bah, and is your bit of bread, and your cup with a little draught of flat wine not a devil’s supper? for you sacramentarians do not bless your cup, nor do you consecrate your bit of bread, but it is wine and bread, and remains wine and bread; bah, let us hear what you can answer against this, that will be conclusive.

Herm. In regard to this, I must ask you, whether you yourself believe, that Christ in his last supper meant no other body or flesh, and no other blood, than that which was to be broken and shed on the cross for the remission of sins.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, and should I not believe this? this is quite Catholic, that it is.

Herm. Well you will certainly also confess, I think, that the bread which the apostles ate at the supper was not crucified.

Fr. Corn. Bah, what hellish, devilish, heretical question is this; never in all the days of my life did I hear such a deep question. Bah, I believe and know very well, that the apostles ate the same body or flesh of Jesus Christ, which the day after the supper was to be crucified, see.

Herm. Therefore, poor man, you do not understand the sense or meaning of Christ, though Paul in the tenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians very clearly explains the same, saying: “Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifice partakers of the altar? Thus also are we in the eating of the bread, and in the drinking of the wine, partakers of the body and blood of Christ.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you accursed Sacramentarian, would you compare the flesh of God to the rotten flesh of oxen, and the lousy flesh of sheep, and to the rotten, putrid flesh of goats and other beasts and carrions? * * * Bah, fie, what abominable and horrible heresy is this?

Herm. You understand neither Paul nor me; for what I say is this, that Paul by this comparison of the sacrifices of the altar (which the Jews ate, and thereby became partakers of the sacrifice in the remission of sins) explains and expounds the communion or participation of the broken bread and of the cup of wine (which we eat and drink in remembrance of the body and blood of Christ), that we thus also become partakers in the washing from sins through the body and blood of Christ, which he offered up for the sins of the world.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, see, now I plainly understand your heretical, Sacramentarian meaning, that you only make comparisons and memorials of the flesh and blood of Christ. Eh, accursed Anabaptist, why then does St. Paul say, in the eleventh chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” Bah, answer me once to this, you accursed Sacramentarian that you are.

Herm. In the tenth chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians Paul writes: “We being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.” Again in the twelfth chapter: “We are all members of one body. If we then are members of one body, unto which Christ has united us together by his baptism and by his Spirit, no external sign can be fitter, to show or signify the union of one body, than that in the breaking of bread we all become partakers of one bread, in token that we being many are one bread and body. Likewise it is also with the wine; for as many grains are ground together, and made into one bread, so of many grapes one drink is made. Therefore let every one examine himself, whether he be worthy of the communion of the bread and of the cup of the Lord, and whether he love his fellow brother with a pure heart: for if he hates his brother, and does not love him, and would besides make himself a partaker yet of the bread and of the cup of the Lord as though he were a member of Christ, he shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and shall eat judgment to himself, not discerning, that the body of the Lord is signified by this communion or participation, that we are members of one body, into which Christ has united us.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, tush! it seems that you also could preach a little sermon in the Gruthuysbosch. Bah, this people know nothing else to do but to preach; but you would have to preach a long time to me, before I would believe that a man will eat and drink judgment to himself on a bit of common bread, and a little draught of wine, by which you Sacramentarians would only signify the body and blood of Christ. Bah, I would rather believe that God’s name is Henry, that I would.

Herm. What greater importance was there in the sacrifices of the Jews, of sheep and doves, than in the bread and wine, which are all types of the true sacrifice which Christ made on the cross in his own flesh and blood? And if the Jews had nevertheless, according to the command of Christ, to lay down their offering before the altar, and first go and become reconciled to their brother, before they were to offer, then a Christian also ought first to examine himself, before he partakes of the bread and the cup of the Lord.

Fr. Corn. Bah, a thousand devils, God bless us, if the bread and the wine are only types of the true sacrifice of the flesh and blood of Christ on the cross why then does he say in the sixth chapter of John: “The bread that I will give is my flesh;” again: “My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed; therefore he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, shall live forever,” eh?

Herm. This argument is against yourself, for you would say that the bread is therefore the body of Christ, and the wine his blood, because Paul says, that whosoever eats and drinks it unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself. And here Christ says: “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, shall live forever.” If therefore that bread and wine of which Paul writes, were the flesh and blood of Christ, no one could therein eat judgment to himself.

Fr. Corn. Bah, this accursed Sacramentarian would torment and pester us here, I suppose, with all these abominable blasphemies against God’s true body and blood. Bah, the very devil of hell sits in his accursed mouth.

Herm. I have not mentioned one word about the body and blood of God; how then can I have blasphemed there against?

Fr. Corn. O, you accursed Anabaptist and Sacramentarian, are the body and blood of Christ not also the body and blood of God? are God the Father and the Son of God not one God, or would you make two Gods of them. Bah, are you also a Trinitarian, I suppose, eh?

Herm. Yet you said, when you wanted to dispute about the mass, that you priests daily in the mass, offer up to God his Son Jesus Christ; hence you make a distinction between God and the body of his Son, which you now begin to call the flesh and body of God.

Fr. Corn. Bah, the devil and his mother wag your tongue. You would now like to bite into my trap, would you? Ah, you wicked, vile, false, crafty Anabaptist and Sacramentarian, yea, also Trinitarian, because you speak so abominably of the holy Trinity, do you then not believe, that Christ is the second person in the Godhead of the holy Trinity? Bah, it seems not from your speaking.

Herm. We only know to speak of things that are mentioned in the holy Scriptures.

Fr. Corn. O you Trinitarian, do we not read in the holy Scriptures of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost, eh?

Herm. Yet the holy Scriptures speak of only one God, and of the Son of the living God, and of the Holy Ghost.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? you accursed Trinitarian; if you would read the symbol309 of Athanasius, you would read of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of God the Holy Ghost, which three persons are therein called one true God, of whom the Father is the first person in the Godhead; the Son is the second person in the Godhead, and the Holy Ghost is the third person in the Godhead; and these three persons constitute the holy Trinity, that they do. Do you understand now, you Trinitarian, eh?

Herm. I have not studied the symbol of Athanasius; for it is enough for me, that I believe in the living God, and that Christ is the Son of the living God, as Peter believed (Matt. 16), and in the Holy Ghost, which is shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, as Paul writes in the third chapter of his epistle to Titus.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? you are certainly fine fellows, that God should shed his Holy Spirit upon you who will not believe that the Holy Ghost is also God himself. But this heresy you pick up and study in the devilish books of that accursed Erasmus of Rotterdam, who in his preface to the books of St. Hilary writes, that St. Hilary, at the end of his twelfth book, says, that the Holy Ghost is nowhere in the holy Scriptures called God, but that we have become so presumptuous as to dare call the Holy Ghost God, which the ancient teachers of the church did not dare do. In like manner this wicked Erasmus is also a great enemy of the divinity of Christ. Ah, bah! would you follow this damned Trinitarian, eh?

Herm. We follow neither Erasmus nor Hilary, but we follow the holy Scriptures, as Hilary and Erasmus herein do.

Fr. Corn. Though the holy Scriptures nowhere call the Holy Spirit God, what matters it? The Holy Ghost himself has inspired our mother the holy Roman Catholic church, to call him God, as appears from the symbol of Athanasius, see. But in good faith, if you believe the holy Scriptures, why then will you not believe in the divinity of Christ, eh?

Herm. That be far from us, that we should not believe in the divinity of Christ, that he is divine and heavenly, and not earthly, as you people believe; therefore we are put to death by you.

Fr. Corn. * * * Bah, we put you to death, because you people will not believe, that Christ assumed the seed of Mary his blessed mother, see.

Herm. We believe that the word became flesh, as John writes in the first chapter of his gospel.

Fr. Corn. Bah, now I have got you well cornered; for God was the word. And if God became flesh, why then would you bite into my trap, because I say, God’s flesh, God’s body, and God’s blood, eh?

Herm. We too believe that God was the word; but would you then therefrom understand, that the living God (of whom Christ is the Son) became himself flesh? this were certainly contrary to the entire holy Scriptures.

Fr. Corn. Yet Christ says, John 10:30; “I and my Father are one.” Again, John 14:9: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” Bah, where are you now, eh?

Herm. Christ also says (John 17:21–23): “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” Again (Acts 4:32): “The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” Again, Paul to the Galatians (3:8) says: “For ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Again (Ephesians 5:31,32): “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery.”

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, you have preached enough; for all this you have drawn from the venomous breasts of Erasmus. But answer me, why Christ says: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father,” see.

Herm. Christ also says, John 6:46: “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of the Father, he hath seen the Father.” Again, John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at any time.” Again, John 14:28: “For my Father is greater than I.” Again, Mark 13:32: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” From this it is sufficiently shown that the Father himself did not become flesh.

Fr. Corn. Bah, this you need not teach me; for I say myself that Christ, the second person in the Godhead, or of the holy Trinity, became man, whom you will not call God; do you understand this, you accursed Trinitarian that you are?

Herm. I call him the Son of the living God, as Peter called him (Matt. 16:16), and Lord, as the apostles call him.

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Trinitarian, I could jump out of my skin for anger, that I could.

Herm. Then you must jump out of your skin, when in the second chapter of the Acts of the apostles (verse 22), you read that Peter calls him but a man of God, saying: “Jesus of Nazareth, a man310 approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him.” Again, in the same chapter (verse 32): “This Jesus hath God raised up.” Again, in the third chapter (verse 15): “Whom God hath raised from the dead.” Again, in Acts 4:10: “Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead.” Again, Paul (Acts 17:31) says: “Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.”

Fr. Corn. Yes, yes, tush, tush, tush, bah! these are the same arguments which this damned Erasmus prefers, in his book, de modo orandi, and in Apologia ad Episcopum Hispalensem, Alphonsum Mauricum. But you Trinitarian, if you will call Christ only the Son of God, you do not esteem him better than Adam; for Luke says in his third chapter, that Adam also was the son of God. Bah! see once, with what we are tormented.

Herm. That be far from us, that we should not esteem Christ better than Adam; for because we believe, that the body of Christ is not earthy of the earth, as was Adam the first man, but that he is a heavenly man, as Paul writes in the fifteenth chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians; therefore we are put to death by you; hence you yourselves do not esteem him better than Adam.

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Trinitarian, how the devil does wag your tongue. Bah, if you will not believe, that Christ is truly man, and if you will also not believe, that he is the true God, what * * * is he then?

Herm. Do not talk so unbecomingly; for Christ is no devil; but he is the true Son of God, as John writes in the fifth chapter of his first epistle; and he is also a true man, as Paul writes in the fifth chapter of his epistle to the Romans.

Fr. Corn. Bah, but does not St. John in the same chapter say of the Son: “This is the true God;” eh?

Herm. No, for John says: We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, and that we should be in his true Son. This is the true God, and eternal life. Hereby John means this true God whom the Son taught us to know.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you Trinitarian; now it occurs to me that St. John says in the same chapter: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. Bah, here you are soundly cornered, poor Trinitarian that you are.

Herm. I have often heard it said, that Erasmus in his Annotations charges you papists with having interpolated these words, and that they are not contained in the Greek text, even as you people have taken out and added many other things in the holy Scriptures.

Fr. Corn. Bah, may the fire of hell forever burn and torment you with your devilish, damned, accursed heretic Erasmus. Bah, I could tear my cap for anger, that I could.

Herm. Why then do you not tear your cap, when you read that Greek text yourself, and see that this is not contained in it?

Fr. Corn. Bah, my lords, what do you think of this—am I wrong in so sharply attacking in my sermons this damned heretic, this wicked Trinitarian Erasmus? For it is true, this he writes; yea, what is still worse, in his Annotations to the fourth chapter of St. Luke he has written, that a very great and strange corruption has been wrought in the holy Scriptures in the Greek and Latin copies, that sometimes something is added and interpolated and sometimes something taken away, omitted, and erased, on account of the heretics: yea, that the marginal notes which were now and then written by one or the other have all been foisted into the text, my lords, is it not a fine thing?

Recorder. Ah, Father Cornelis, we are no theologians; we do not understand these things.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? Bah, I believe it; but this Trinitarian would certainly understand it very well, as you hear, that he charges us with it. Bah, he would dare charge us Catholics with his arch-heretic, this wicked Erasmus, that in the ninth chapter of Romans, where Paul says: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came;” we have interpolated: “Who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.” For this accursed Erasmus writes, that he has great doubts with regards to this clause: ”Oui est benedictus in saecula. Amen. Or these words are to be interpreted and understood as a thanksgiving to God the Father, thus: “Christ, etc, who is over all. God be blessed for ever. Amen.” “Otherwise,” he writes, “I have great doubts, whether this clause has not been interpolated, as I find also in some other texts, that they have added similar clauses, for the conclusion of discourses, as, Tu autem Domine, etc., Gloria Patri et Filio, etc., as their lessons and prayers are all concluded with such clauses.” But as regards the words of St. Thomas, in the twentieth chapter of St. John’s gospel, you have no way of escape; for there St. Thomas said to Christ: “My Lord and my God.” Bah, to this he does not reply, yea, with this he is soundly cornered; nevertheless, he spitefully writes with regard to this: “This is the first and last passage in the Scriptures, where Christ is called God.” Bah, but you Trinitarian, let us hear what you can say to this.

Herm. I reply to this, that Thomas said very well here; for David says in the eighty-second Psalm: “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High.” Christ himself also quotes these words in the tenth chapter of John. When the Jews took up stones to stone him, because he had said, “I and the Father are one,” Jesus answered them: “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me? The Jews answered him, saying: For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?” Again, Ex. 22:8,9: “If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the gods, etc. The cause of both parties shall come before the gods; and whom the gods shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbor.”

Fr. Corn. Bah, but tell me without many words, why Christ did not say to St. Thomas: Stay: I am not your God? let us hear.

Herm. In regard to this my previous answer, John 10; David in Ps. 82 will serve; but answer me, why Christ did not reply to these words of Thomas: “Upon this rock I will build my church,” as he said, Matt. 16:18, when Peter answered him: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”? He also did not say to Thomas: “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” Why also does Christ, John 20:17; say to his disciples: “I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God”? Again, Matt. 27:46: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, you Trinitarian. Bah, from this would probably follow diabolical arguments which would transcend all human comprehension. Ah, bah, is Christ not truly God? why then do we call his blessed mother the mother of God, eh?

Herm. Because you will nowhere follow the holy Scriptures, but would call everything by a contrary and different name; for the holy Scriptures call her the mother of Jesus, as in the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, in the nineteenth chapter of John, and in many other places of holy Scripture, where she is not once called the mother of God.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? Bah, do you think that we Catholics pay so much regard to the naked, bare, meagre Scriptures? Ah, bah, the worthy, holy council of Nice has ordained and decreed that she should be called the mother of God. What do you say to this?

Herm. Do you not hold the last council of Trent to be of as great authenticity, dignity, and holiness as the council of Nice?

Fr. Corn. Yea, in troth, and should we not? Ah, bah, the Holy Ghost taught and spoke just as well through the fathers in the worthy council of Trent, as through the fathers in the council of Nice. Bah, what need is there of asking this question? have you nothing else to ask me? Bah, I well perceive that you would fain drop the subject concerning the mother of God.

Herm. I had to ask this in order to hear your confession in regard to it; for now I know by the council of Trent all the other councils, because I have in my time heard and seen how things went at the former council, which mocks and puts to shame all previous councils.

Fr. Corn. O you hellish, devilish; accursed Trinitarian, you blaspheme the Holy Ghost. It is a wonder that we do not all together with you sink into the earth. My lords, I am absolutely afraid to speak any longer with this Beelzebubian Anabaptist, Sacramentarian and Trinitarian, and enemy of the mother of God, that I am.

Recorder. Can you not keep still in regard to these things, Herman, as we requested of you?

Herm. I do not blaspheme the Holy Ghost, nor am I an enemy of the mother of Christ.

Fr. Corn. Bah, do you not blaspheme the Holy Ghost, when you ridicule, vilify and deride the worthy council of Trent, and all the previous holy councils? and will not call the worthy, holy, blessed virgin Mary the mother of God, as the holy council of Nice teaches and commands us to do? Bah, are you not then a blasphemer of the Holy Ghost, and an enemy of the mother of God, eh?

Herm. You papists were so presumptuous in your council of Nice, that you dared call the mother of Jesus Christ the mother of God, whom neither the apostles nor the evangelists dared call the mother of the Son of God.

Fr. Corn. O you damned, devilish Anabaptist, you hellish Trinitarian, Sacramentarian and deadly enemy of the blessed mother of God, we will call her the mother of God in spite of your teeth, and she is too the mother of God. Yea, she is the mother of God, that she is?

Herm. You said yourself that there are three persons in the holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that these three persons are but one true God. If Mary then is the mother of this true God, then she is just as well the mother of the Father and of the Holy Ghost, and of the Son.

Fr. Corn. O you devilish heretic, I have proved to you from the symbol of Athanasius, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God, and that the Holy Ghost is God, and that there are nevertheless not three gods, but that these three are one true, inseparable God, see.

Herm. If these three are not each a distinct, separate God, but if the three are but one true inseparable God, and if Mary is the mother of God, then she must be the mother of all three, or the three must each be a separate God. Where are you now with your council of Nice?

Fr. Corn. Bah, may the fire of hell burn you, you wicked, evil, vile, false, crafty Trinitarian; the devil wags your accursed tongue. Bah, you would drive an hundred thousand doctors of divinity mad and crazy. Jesus, Jesus, worthy mother of God, how you are reviled, despised and rejected by this hellish devil’s brood, But in good faith, how would you have her called—Maeyken Timmermans,311 as you call her in your hellish, devilish sermons in the Gruthuysbosch, eh?

Herm. We call her the mother of Jesus, as she is called in the Scriptures, And how can you say that we revile, despise and reject her?

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Anabaptist, I will drop this, that you will not call her the mother of God; but is this not odious reviling, despising and rejecting, that your arch-heretic, Menno Symons writes, that Christ did not assume the sinful earthly seed of Mary, but that he came with flesh and blood, with skin and hair, from heaven, into Mary, and thus became man, and that he merely passed through her body, as water through a sieve, or through a spout;—bah, is this not reviling blaspheming, despising and rejecting?

Herm. You do not understand what Menno Simons writes; for what you here say, cannot be found in his writings; but he shows with many Scriptures, that the Word became flesh (as John writes in his first chapter), and not the seed of Mary.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, was Christ then not born of the seed of David according to the promise; which seed he assumed in the blessed virgin Mary, of her most pure blood, and of that became flesh and man, eh?

Herm. That Christ was born of the seed of David (as regards the generation of which he was born) we well believe; but the angel said to Joseph: That which is begotten in her is of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 1:20. Again, John 16:28, Christ himself says: I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah, Christ says this of his divinity, that the same proceeded, and came into the world from the Father, and not from his humanity, you stupid Anabaptist.

Herm. Why then did Christ say, John 6:62: What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? Again, John 3:13: No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man. Again, Paul says, Eph. 4:9,10: That he ascended; what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens.

Fr. Corn. Bah, you stupid Anabaptist, did Christ then come from heaven into Mary with flesh and blood, with skin and hair, entrails and all, as he ascended up to heaven? Bah, what do you say of this, you great, stupid, awkward ass?

Herm. I do not say this; but I say that the Word came from heaven, and became flesh in Mary, as John writes in his first chapter.

Fr. Corn. And we Catholics say that the most pure blood of Mary became flesh, in spite of your miserable teeth, see.

Herm. This defiance to my teeth is a small matter; but this defiance to the holy Scriptures is a great blasphemy.

Fr. Corn. Ha, you damned Anabaptist, I do not blaspheme the holy Scriptures; but you revile the holy, blessed, pure virgin Mary. Bah, I am surprised that you do not say, that she conceived her son Christ of her husband Joseph, as your hedge-preachers preach in the Gruthuysbosch; is it not a fine thing?

Herm. You wrong us greatly, that you say this of us; for we believe as Matthew writes in his first chapter: “Joseph took his wife, and knew her not till she had brought forth her first born son.”

Fr. Corn Ah, bah! did Joseph know her afterwards, eh?

Herm. It matters not to me whether he knew her afterwards, or not.

Fr. Corn. Indeed? and do you then not believe in the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgin Mary? let us hear now.

Herm. We find nothing said in the Scriptures, concerning her perpetual virginity.

Fr. Corn. Bah, this accursed Anabaptist would pester me with the Scriptures. Will you then positively believe nothing else but what is contained in the holy Scriptures? Bah, hence it comes that you thus despise, reject and revile the worthy mother of God and imagine, yea, teach and believe that she did the carnal works of the married state with Joseph her husband, just as well as your filthy, sinful wives do with you, and that she had many children by Joseph her husband; bah, is this not a fine thing?

Herm. And if she had done the work of the married state with her husband Joseph, and brought forth more children (which is ordained and commanded of God, Gen. 1, and is a blessing) would she thereby have sinned?

Fr. Corn. Bah, God blessed Adam and Eve, and said: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,” before they transgressed the commandment; but they did not continue in the blessing, but transgressed the commandment of God, and thereby the work of marriage became sin to them; bah, now you are cornered.

Herm. You are cornered yourself; for, Gen. 9:1, it is written: “God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Again, the prophet Jeremiah, in the twenty-ninth chapter, says: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased.”

Fr. Corn. Bah, tush, tush, you have talked enough; bah, hear how much talk there is in this miserable Anabaptist. Bah, now that I hear you talk, I will believe, that you Anabaptists undisguisedly and presumptuously preach out there in the Gruthuysbosch, that Maeyken Timmermans, as regards the work of marriage, was not a hair better than your filthy, unchaste, carnal wives are. Yea, in order utterly to loose the marriage bond, and to show, that women may have divers husbands, you wicked Anabaptists dare preach and teach, that Mary had children of many different husbands, like your wives, whom you have in common—is this not a fine thing?

Herm. Of such things as you here say I never heard our teachers speak once, when they preached the word; but it may sometimes have been asked among us, whether the brethren and sisters of Christ, of whom the holy Scriptures make mention, Matthew 13; Mark 6, etc., were natural children by Joseph or Mary.

Fr. Corn. O you accursed Anabaptist, the holy Scriptures calls some apostles, as St. James, St. Simon, St. Judas, the Lord’s brethren, who were merely his cousins, you stupid Anabaptists that you are.

Herm. Yet, in the first chapter of Acts it is written (after the eleven apostles are enumerated): “These all continued with one accord in prayer [and supplication,] with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.” Nevertheless, I will not insist upon, or maintain, that Mary the mother of Jesus gave birth yet to other children.

Fr. Corn. Bah, but when you Anabaptists are assembled in the Gruthuysbosch, you will maintain it, and other things yet concerning her, which are still much more wicked and abominable; for I know it well, that I do.

Herm. We are greatly slandered, even as also you often stand in your pulpit and preach about us all that you please.

Fr. Corn. Indeed, do then any Anabaptists sometimes come to hear me preach, eh?

Herm. Though we do not hear you preach ourselves, yet we are told, that you stand in your pulpit and preach, that the Calvinists and Anabaptists teach and preach, that Mary the mother of Christ was a filthy whore, for which you are censured by learned men (in letters which they write to you), how you slander us thereby.

Fr. Corn. Bah, * * * you miserable Anabaptist * * * for such * * * letters I do not care * * * do you understand this? And do you know nothing else to say? Bah, you do not answer me in regard to having the women in common: bah, you Anabaptists have certainly gone about it very cunningly, that you have the women and maidens in common; for thereby you gain such a great number of adherents for your Anabaptism. Bah, but show me once from the Scriptures, that the women and maidens are to be had in common, as you Anabaptists do in your devil’s supper:—bah, see; let us hear, whether you will be able to show me this.

Herm. No; for this I could show to you just as little, as you can show to me from the holy Scriptures, that the women and maidens must be scourged, as you do in your secret disciplining. But you have certainly well practiced the secret disciplining or scourging of the maidens and women, for thereby you gain such a great retinue of devotaries.

Fr. Corn. Bah, I would rather * * * than reply to all your talk; but answer my question. * * *

Herm. All such barefaced lies, as that we have the women and maidens in common, I do not deem worthy of an answer.

Fr. Corn. Ah, bah! Is it a barefaced lie, that you Anabaptists have the women in common? Why then does all the world speak of it, and why then is it printed in so many books, which by us Catholics are written against you, and which I daily read. Fie, you adulterers! fie, you dishonorers of marriage!

Herm. All that are of the world are liars; hence you and your Catholics cannot be believed.

Fr. Corn. Ah, am I of the world, * * * you accursed, bewitched, damned Anabaptist that you are. Bah, you stupid beast, and do you not see, that I am spiritual? But you evince worldly works by having all the women in common; but I have vowed chastity; do you understand this, you dishonorer of marriage that you are?

Herm. We do not dishonor marriage; but if you are spiritual, and have vowed chastity, then it is surprising that you have your delight in this carnal, unclean, secret disciplining, or scourging of the women.

Fr. Corn. O you devilish Anabaptist and dishonorer of marriage, I could almost fly into your eyes or into your mouth; bah, what do you understand about my secret disciplining which I employ with my devotaries? Bah, you are filthy, carnal, unchaste, voluptuous rogues, that you thus use the women in common, like dogs. Yes, you damned dishonorers of marriage are nothing more than rotten, stinking dog carrions; for you go about it in this respect like dogs, though you would deny it before us; bah, fie, fie! shame upon you * * * Bah, if I cannot prevail upon you with kindness, I must try whether I can do it with severity; see now.

Clerk of the criminal court. Ah, father Cornelis, do be modest and keep your temper.

Recorder. Yes, converse together with kind, calm words; for it seems that you will continue to quarrel and bicker here like harlots.

Fr. Corn. Bah, my lords, and may I not accuse him of what is true? I suppose so. Did you not hear yourselves yesterday, that that * * * bishop of the Anabaptists at first also wanted to deny everything; but when he perceived that I was so well acquainted with the matter, he acknowledged that there were some among them, who taught and practiced these things in secret, and when I soundly berated and convicted him with plain and conclusive arguments, he denied it no longer. Bah, why then should I not also have liberty to accuse and convict this one of it? Am I not come here to instruct and convert him? I think I am. See with what we are tormented. Why does he deny a matter which is true? * * * One may certainly talk here, I suppose?

Herm. Then I may also reply to you, that this matter is not true, because these things are lies; and I presume that Jacob, my fellow brother did well reply against it.

Fr. Corn. Yes, until I told him that the Anabaptists at Amsterdam and elsewhere, in Holland, ran stark-naked through the streets, men, women, boys and maidens, and said to one another: “My spirit desires your flesh.” Bah! was this not a fine thing, eh?

Herm. No, this was not a fine thing; and hence we never regarded such as our brethren.

Fr. Corn. Bah! why would you deny it so strongly; for it is well enough known, that you Anabaptists do not regard the sacrament of marriage at all, because for a very little matter you loose and sever the marriage bond.

Herm. Since you bring so many untrue charges against us in regard to our marriage, I must ask you something respecting marriage that concerns you, and which is certainly no lie, for Paul writes thus to Timothy, in the fourth chapter (first epistle): “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving.

Fr. Corn. Tush, tush, hold your tongue; for we do not want any more preaching here; bah, begone, get you hence. * * *

Herm. If I could be gone from here, I would no longer listen to your blasphemies and lies.

Fr. Corn. Ah, you accursed, hardened, petrified Anabaptist, how the devils in hell (whither you will shortly go) will sit in your accursed mouth, with burning pitch, brimstone, tar, and Greek fire; just wait.

Herm. No; but I shall go under the altar which John saw in his Apocalypse, as is written in the sixth chapter, to the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held; who cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

Fr. Corn. Yes, the devil’s martyr you will be. * * * But this preaching would probably last all night; hence I go to my convent, and let you preach as long as you will, you damned, accursed Anabaptist, Sacramentarian, Trinitarian, and marriage dishonorer that you are; see.

In the meantime one of the aforesaid two martyrs, namely, Jacob de Roore, or the chandler, while imprisoned, wrote several letters replete with holy and divine things, which we deem it profitable to communicate to the reader; they are the following: