Some Examinations Of Jan Hendrickss.

A few days after I was taken below again before my lord the Bailiff and a young priest, the chaplain of the Old Church, and thus three of us were in the sheriff’s hall. The priest then began to relate how he had had a conversation with a man, and that they had had many words together concerning the holy-Scriptures, and about this burning and killing, for there had recently four priests been put to death in the Hague, and the priests had said to one another that there were many different views in the world concerning the holy Scriptures, and each died for his belief, and yet there was but one true. This the priest told me, and said to me that they had many words; and the man had requested the priest that he should talk with me; so the priest said. I then asked: “What kind of a man was it?” “He was of your persuasion,” he said, “a sailor, and a man like you are.” Then it occurred to me who it was, but he is not of our persuasion, for I had already heard of him; and thus we fell into an animated conversation, and the priest asked me, whom I acknowledge as true, for there are so many persuasions. I said: “What have I to do with another, I have enough to do with myself.” He asked whether there was more than one faith that was true. “No,” said I. And there fell very many words, and the Bailiff listened, and greatly strengthened the priest in what he said; and whenever I quoted Scripture against them, the priest was immediately on hand to obscure what I said, so that I could not finish my remarks, and he frequently said to me: “You are forever coming with the holy Scriptures.” “Yes,” said I, “with what should I come? I have nothing else.” “Yes,” said he, “I well know that you always come with the Scriptures, and much with the passage, 2 Thess. 2:15, where Paul says: “Mark therefore, dear brethren, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or epistle.” Mark well the term word; by that he frequently wanted to prove that there was more Scripture than was written, which we were also bound to observe, as far as I could comprehend his assertion, for he frequently made it before I could really understand it. But it is only a stumbling-block--how can we observe more than what is written? Their sole aim is to obscure the understanding of the Scriptures, since they are well aware that with the Scriptures they will fall short; and they also cannot well bear it that we quote the Scriptures of the New Testament, for whenever we do this, their first question is why we quote more from the Testament, than from other writers, and whereby we know that the Testament is true; and they then come with many sophistical questions, which are not edifying, and skip from one thing to another. But when they can find any Scriptures in the Testament that are on their side, these must stand, yea, then the word of God must stand forever. For we came to speak of the breaking of bread, where Paul says: “Take, eat; this is my body.” 1 Cor. 11:24. This language had to stand just as it was. I asked him more than once, whether the bread which they gave men was the body of Christ. He said: “Yes; when we have pronounced the words over it, it is his flesh and blood, yea, soul and body:” it is the truth what I write. Thereupon I said: “I have eaten the bread with you people, but I could not feel in my mouth, that it became flesh, but it remained bread even as it was.” And we had many words with regard to it. I said that Christ himself says: “Flesh and blood profit nothing; but the words that I speak are spirit and life.” John 6:63. He then came with a sophism, asking whether the flesh of Christ was not good for anything.