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
symbol[309] 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?
[309] Creed.
_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?