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 man[310] 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.”
[310] See German version.
_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?
[311] Probably an allusion to the fact that Mary’s husband Joseph,
was a carpenter.
_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.