Part 185
_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 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.