# Disputation Between Jacob De Keersgieter And Mr. Friar Cornelis, A Franciscan Monk; In The Presence Of Mr. Jan Van Damme, Recorder, And Mr. Michiel Houwaert, Clerk Of The Criminal Court, On The 9th Of May, A. D. 1569.306

1569 · Historical source

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

Source heading; not independently verified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jac. I too believe that Paul thereby means antichrist.
But does not the Pope of Rome do the very
works of antichrist? Does he not command you,
that you are not to marry? Does he not command
you to abstain from meats which God hath created
to be received with thanksgiving of them which be
743lieve?
as Paul writes in the fourth chapter of his first
epistle to Timothy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Corn. * * * You accursed Anabaptist that
you are. You seek nothing but to tangle up everything
that is advanced against you—the devil wags
your tongue. But let us hear what you can say
744
against this, where Christ says: “Go and show
yourselves to the priests.” Matt. 8:4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Corn. Bah, you are a fine leader, that you
do not yet know the sacrament of confirmation.
Confirmation is, that the bishop or the suffragan
anoints the grown children, and sometimes also
adult persons (that are not yet confirmed) with the
holy chrism on their forehead, and gives them a
blow on the cheek, in token that they should remember
745
that they have been confirmed; which confirmation
signifies the confirmation of baptism. Now
you will understand or know it, I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fr. Corn. Bah, bah! this is the most aggravating
monstrosity yet. I thought you would go and
show or prove to me from the Holy Scriptures, that
746
the women may be had in common; and do you
now want to deny it, eh!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

747

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
748
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
749
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
750
the dead: for Paul writes to the Hebrews, in the
ninth chapter, that Christ by his own blood entered
in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal
redemption for us. “For if the blood of bulls and of
goats, [and the ashes of a heifer] sprinkling the unclean,
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how
much more shall the blood of Christ, who through
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to
God, purge our conscience from dead works, to
serve the living God?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jac. Well then, when Christ saw and heard, that
Nicodemus was so greatly astonished at the words
which he spake to him, and that Nicodemus could
not understand his words, and asked, how these
things were possible, Christ answered him and said:
“Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not
these things?” From these words of Christ we can
understand, that Christ did not speak of baptism,
but that he spoke to him of things that were comprehended
in the law of the Israelites, namely, the
regeneration by the Holy Ghost, in which all the
holy fathers and elect of God, before the coming of
Christ, were regenerated or baptized. For if Christ
had spoken of water baptism, as you papists think,
Nicodemus might have said to Christ: I have never
read of a water baptism in the whole law. But now
Christ spoke to him of things that were written in
the law, or in the holy Scriptures of the Old Testament,
though he called them by another name,
namely, a regeneration of the water and of the
Spirit, though the Holy Ghost is therein called a
water. But Christ thereby wanted to prove to Nicodemus,
in order to astonish him in regard to a matter
751
which he ought to have known and understood
very well, since he was a master of Israel. Behold,
for this reason the regeneration in which Christ
baptizes with the Holy Ghost is only signified by
the outward baptism of water.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-disputation-between-jacob-de-keersgieter-and-mr-friar-cornelis-a-franciscan-monk-in-the-presence-of-mr-jan-van-damme-rec/

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Disputation+Between+Jacob+De+Keersgieter+And+Mr.+Friar+Cornelis%2C+A+Franciscan+Monk%3B+In+The+Presence+Of+Mr.+Jan+Van+Damme%2C+Recorder%2C+And+Mr.+Michiel+Houwaert%2C+Clerk+Of+The+Criminal+Court%2C+On+The+9th+Of+May%2C+A.+D.+1569.306&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0ADisputation+Between+Jacob+De+Keersgieter+And+Mr.+Friar+Cornelis%2C+A+Franciscan+Monk%3B+In+The+Presence+Of+Mr.+Jan+Van+Damme%2C+Recorder%2C+And+Mr.+Michiel+Houwaert%2C+Clerk+Of+The+Criminal+Court%2C+On+The+9th+Of+May%2C+A.+D.+1569.306%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-disputation-between-jacob-de-keersgieter-and-mr-friar-cornelis-a-franciscan-monk-in-the-presence-of-mr-jan-van-damme-rec%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-disputation-between-jacob-de-keersgieter-and-mr-friar-cornelis-a-franciscan-monk-in-the-presence-of-mr-jan-van-damme-rec%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+1569%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)