Part 183
_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 Beggars[308] call it, I suppose, eh?
[308] An opprobrious appellation for the Protestants.--TR.
_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?