He then asked me why I had not my children baptized. I said: “Because I have never read that the apostles baptized infants, nor is it found in the Scriptures.” And so it was written: “Jan Hendrickss has confessed to us that he has not had his children baptized, and this because he has never read in the Scriptures that children were baptized.” The Bailiff then asked me how many children I had, whether I did not have more than the two whom he had caused to be baptized. I said: “None.” “How old are the children?” Ans. “The older is three years, and the other about one year.”
Then the Bailiff asked me whether I had been aware that children were baptized. I said: “Yes, I have seen it myself.” Ques. “Why then did you not have your children baptized? Or are you better or wiser than your forefathers?” Ans. “That I have not had my children baptized, is because I have never read that infants are baptized.” Then they said that whole households were baptized. Ans. “Whole households are indeed spoken of, but it is written that they all rejoiced that they had come to believe in the Lord, which infants can not do.” This some of the lords admitted. The clerk then asked me where it was forbidden to baptize infants. I asked him where it was forbidden to throw dice. He said that it was forbidden enough, but he could not prove it to me. Then I said: “It is nowhere forbidden; yet every one knows that it is an evil practice,” and they also admitted that it was not good. I further said that the Scriptures do not forbid everything that is evil, and that no one should institute the practice of baptizing infants, unless he is able to prove it from the Scriptures. The Bailiff then asked me whether I had had myself baptized. Ans. “I had myself baptized once, and I know of but one baptism. Then the Bailiff asked me whether I had received more than the baptism administered to me in my infancy. Ans. “I had myself baptized once according to the Scriptures, the last day of March, ’63.” Then the Bailiff said: “It was in ’64; you confessed so to me yourself, when I apprehended you.” “It was in ’63, said I; but I shall not deny it, whether it is a year more or less.” Then the Bailiff said: “We may have misunderstood each other;” and he had it written thus: “Jan Hendrickss had himself baptized the last day of March, ’63, and this according to the Scriptures.” “Then you were not very old yet,” said the Bailiff. “This is true, I said.”
He then asked whether I did not know that I was baptized in my infancy, “I have heard it said,” said I, “but I do not remember it.” “This indeed I believe” said the Bailiff. “What man was it that baptized you, and where was he from, and what was his name?” Ans. “I did not ask him what his name was, I had never seen him, nor have I ever seen him since that time, as far as I know.” This was written exactly as I confessed it to them. Ques. “Where does he reside?” Ans. “I do not know.” Ques. “Do you not know where he was from?” Ans. “I do not want to tell you this; I do not wish to name any one.” Ques. “Why?” Ans. “Because I do not wish to bring any one into trouble; there are enough in trouble now, and you have trouble enough with us.” Ques. “Was no one present when you were baptized?” Ans. “Yes.” Ques. “Who were they and what were their names?” Ans. “I do not wish to tell.” Ques. “Where did it occur and in what place?” Ans. “In Holland.” Then the Bailiff said; “Holland is large; in what place?” Then I said: “Why would you ask me much for the place; if I were to tell you the place, you would demand to know still more; but I do not wish to implicate any one.”
Finally I told them the place, and said that it had taken place in Delfshaven. Ques. “In what house.” Ans. “I do not wish to tell.” Ques. “What was the name of the people that were in that house?” Ans. “I do not wish to name any one.” Ques. “Why are the people in that house so sacred that they may not be named?” Ans. “If you knew them, you would not leave them in peace; and I do not wish to implicate any one; you have trouble enough with us.” Then the Bailiff began to ask how long I had had my wife, and where I had married her. Ans. “About five years,” and I told them that I had married her before the Christian church. Ques. “Before what church? you certainly did not marry her before the church that stands in Delfshaven?” Ans. “No.” And so it was written that I had married her before the Christian church. Ques. “Who was present?” Ans. “I do not wish to tell you.”
Then the Bailiff said that I should name the persons, or he would torture me. Ans. “Sir Bailiff, who taught you this?” Then the Bailiff said that he had power to do thus with me, and threatened me greatly, and when he heard that I would name no one, he told the clerk to write: “Jan Hendrickss has confessed to us such and such things (such as I told them), but he has named no one, and this because he did not wish to implicate any one;” and so it was written. When the Bailiff had thus interrogated me, and wished me many miles away, I said to them, “I would fain be in Hitland.” Then the Bailiff said: “Where is that, where the busses catch the herring?” “Yes,” “I indeed would that you were there, said the Bailiff, with all those that are of your persuasion.” Then one of the lords who, I was told was a burgomaster, wanted to speak to me concerning baptism, and asked me; If a man should lead a Christian life, but did not have himself baptized, whether he could not be saved; whether it would be an obstacle in the way of his salvation? I replied: “No; else salvation would be by the water; but baptism is a command of Christ, hence it must be practiced.” Then I think he said, that it was our view that infants ought not to be baptized, and asked me when they were to be baptized, and how old they had to be. Thereupon I replied to him that the Scriptures specify no year, whether they were twenty, or thirty, or fifty, or a hundred; whenever they repented, and requested it, it might be done; and so we use it, but not sooner, said I, and so did Christ teach, and the apostles practice it. Then they said that at that time it had to be so, that adults were baptized, but now the infants must be baptized, for then was the beginning or commencement; this was their pretense. I then asked the burgomaster whether Christ, Matt. 28 and Mark 16, had not commanded to go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and whether the apostles had not observed the same, and had first taught the people and then baptized them? This he admitted; for we find, he said, that about five thousand were baptized at one time. Thereupon I think I asked him whether he confessed that adult persons were baptized at that time. “Yes,” he said. “Well then, we certainly find clearly enough, that the apostles lived more than ten or twenty years in the world, and they first baptized adult persons, as you confess yourself; and this had therefore to be done so at that time, because it was in the beginning: now, since we find that they lived in the world so long, infants enough must have come into the world in this long period of years;” this he also acknowledged. Then I said: “Now show me once where the apostles in this long time baptized infants; and transferred baptism upon infants; for you say that then adult persons had to be baptized, but now infants. If the apostles had wanted to change baptism, or wanted that it should be changed, they had time enough themselves, for they were long enough in the world, for Paul says: ‘I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God’ ” (Acts 20:27); but they could not prove it to me. Then the oldest judge said that they would prove it to me, but it was not done; and the same judge said that God created man once, and no more; and he commanded circumcision to Abraham once and no more; and he commanded baptism once, and no more. Ans. “This is true. Now, if God created the man Adam once, and no more, and commanded them circumcision once, and no more, and commanded them baptism once, and no more, and they observed the same, and did not change it, why then have they changed baptism from adult persons to infants?” Then they said: “Who has changed it?” Ans. “The Pedobaptists.” Then they told and begged me to consider the matter well, that it was not a convenient thing to be burnt. I replied: “I know that well; I have no desire to be burnt—it is not convenient to be burnt; if I did not know that I am right, I would rather ignominiously yield; than honorably lose my life; for it is no small matter to suffer one’s self to be burnt at the stake; I am not so desirous of death, I would rather keep my life, if it were God’s will.” “Yes,” said they, “consider it well.” Then the Bailiff said: “Jan Hendrickss, you have confessed this to us (and he had my confession read before my eyes, all that I had confessed); now if you will yield, my lords will do their utmost to procure your release.” Ans. “My lords, I am quite open to conviction; if you can prove to me that I am wrong, and when I can feel that, I will desist from that which is evil.” That was well, they said, and they told me to ask the Lord for grace, that he would grant me a good understanding. “That I will gladly do,” said I. This lasted about an hour and a half, whereupon they had me conducted up above again. These are the principal questions which they asked me, and which I have remembered, and these are my simple fisherman’s answers which I made, as far as I can remember, for it was written six weeks after I was before the lords; for there was a man confined with us, and for this reason we dared not write, but to write the words exactly as they were spoken, would be impossible for me, for my memory is weak.
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.
Thus we had many words. I said that it was written that the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands, neither is worshiped with men’s hands. Acts 17:24,25. “Yes,” said the priest, “as though he needed any one; for he does not need us, but we need him.” Then he asked me what I held concerning the matter, or the like. I replied that Paul says, 1 Cor. 10:15–18: “I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say. The cup of blessing which we bless, 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? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” Thus I confess that there is but one communion of Christ, for Paul explains it with a simile, saying: “Behold Israel after the flesh; are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” “Now, I ask,” I said to them, “what was it that Israel eat, the altar or the sacrifices?” They said: “The sacrifices;” but they said it reluctantly. “That is right,” said I; “yet they were partakers of the altar: so it is also with those who help to break or eat the bread; they eat only bread, and are yet partakers of the body of Christ.” I asked whereby he would maintain his mass. He brought forward the passage, 1 Corinthians 11:24: “This do in remembrance of me.” By this he maintained his mass. “Well, there is nothing said about a mass,” said I. This was his defense of the mass. I asked him whether a man might be apprehended for his faith. He affirmed it. I said: “Paul certainly says: A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; but he says nothing about apprehending.” Titus 3:10. “It is written,” said the priest, “that the magistracy does not bear the sword in vain.” “Yes,” said I, “for the punishment of the evil, and for the protection of the good; but what evil have I done?” They said: “You have adhered to false doctrine, and attended assemblies that are opposed to the Roman religion, which the king will not tolerate, for he wants to protect his country; for it was seen what those of Munster did; their object was to capture cities, and to deprive the king of his country.” Ans. “The Munsterites did wrong; have you heard such things of me? I have never in my life known the Munsterites.” “No; but the Munsterites sprang from you.” “Well then, it would have been time enough for you to apprehend me, when you had heard such things of me; for no one can be burned justly, except he first have done evil himself, and not on account of another.” But the priest strenuously defended the authorities in this; that a man might be apprehended for his faith. I said: “Christ certainly said to his servants, when they wanted to root up the tares, that they should not do it, but that they should let both grow together till the day of harvest.” Matt. 13:30. The priest said: “But one can go and root up the tares along the edge, without injuring the good.” Ans. “Christ commands not to do it, but to let it grow.” But the priest constantly charged it upon the magistracy, that the apprehending was their work, just as though the ministers of the Romish church had been without guilt in the matter. I then asked them whether my lord the Bailiff of Delft, who was with us, was a brother and minister in their church. This I asked him many times; but the priest would not give me a clear answer with regard to it, but jumped from one thing to another. However, I did not desist, until he made a definite answer, which he did, but with great reluctance. When the Bailiff saw that we disputed so warmly, he came and stood before us, and listened with close attention; then I pressed the matter only the harder. Finally he said: “Yes.” “Then you acknowledge him as a brother and minister in your church?” “Yes,” said the priest. “Well then, now I desire you to show me where the apostles had magistrates in their church, who protected the faith with fire, water and the sword, as you do.” This he could not prove to me, but came with the passage in Acts 23, where Paul was imprisoned, and more than forty men had vowed neither to eat nor to drink till they should have killed Paul. Paul’s sister’s son hearing this, made it known to Paul, and Paul sent him to the chief captain, that he should tell it to him. And when the chief captain heard it, he said to two other captains, that they should make ready the beasts, and set Paul thereon, and bring him safe unto Felix the Governor; with two hundred soldiers, three-score and ten horsemen, and two hundred spear-men.
Thereupon I replied: “Paul was then a prisoner, and that magistrate was an unbeliever; but show me once where they had magistrates in their church.” “Yes.” said the priest, “if unbelievers did this, how much more believers.” I asked where the apostles had baptized bells. He said: “We do not baptize bells.” “What do you teach them then?” said I. He said that they blessed or exorcised them, if I have remembered his words correctly; “For,” said he, “Satan is much in such things;” and he related how he had reigned in the New Church, and therefore this was done, as he said; and there was a great deal said.
I said to him that I had never read that the apostles had magistrates in the church, who protected their faith with the sword; but that I had read that Paul says: “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Then the priest started up, and asked where this was written. “In Eph. 6:12,” said I. Then he took up his Testament, and looked for it, and having read it he said: “This Paul says of the devil; he is the prince of this world.” I said: “It is the magistracy of this world, who rule the world, for it speaks of principalities and lords of this world.” And there fell many words, the Bailiff listening with attention. The priest said that our faith had not existed long, but that their faith had endured fifteen hundred years, and though whole countries were apostatizing from it, said he, whole countries were being converted in India, and that many great signs and miracles occurred there, even as occurred in the time of Christ, so that the Christians were increasing. Then I said: “Does that occur there, and not here? the church is certainly also here in these lands, and there are pastors in Delft, and in other cities hereabout, as well as there.” He said, it was certainly true. “Yes,” said I, “Pharaoh’s magicians also imitated what Moses did.” “Yes,” said the priest, “that was so, but they did not do such things as occurred there.” Then I said: “Well then, I will adduce to you still more: we read that there was a sorceress, who caused Samuel to come forth from the grave, and Samuel talked with her or with Saul, 1 Sam. 28. “That is true,” said the Bailiff; “I have read that.” Then said I, “Christ himself also says that they shall say: Lord, have we not in thy name cast out devils? But he shall answer them: Depart from me; I know you not.” Matthew 7:22,23. Then the Bailiff said: “Jan Hendrickss does not believe it; do you, Jan Hendrickss?” “No; Sir Bailiff,” said I, there is so much villiany perpetrated.” “Yes,” said the priest, “there has much indeed been done that was not good;” and he related that there had been popes who had not done what was good, but what was wrong. This the priest himself acknowledged; but there was now,” said he, “an old, able man Pope, of whom much good was said, and he confessed that there were bad abuses among them. “Paul says,” said I, “that the old leaven ought to be purged out, and that if any man that is called a brother be a drunkard, or a railer, or a fornicator, with such a one we ought to have nothing to do;” but of this, as it seemed, he had little understanding. “Indeed,” said the Bailiff, “if there were a man who would have to do with another man’s wife, I should not want to have anything to do with him.”
The priest then I think asked me why I had left them? I said that I had indeed heard the priests preach a great deal, very severely censuring popery, but that they did not practice what they preach; that they drank to such an excess as to fight, strike and rave as though they had been madmen, and for this reason I left. This I confessed to him because the Bailiff was present; when there were no lords present, I did not wish to bring up their things. I said: “They always want to instruct us in prison; they ought to set us at liberty, and then instruct us;” but of this nothing was said. And having thus many words together, I asked the Bailiff, saying: “Sir Bailiff, I must ask you something: if I should renounce my faith: however I do not say that I shall do that.” “Well,” said the Bailiff, “I do not say it either, that you do.” “But if I did, would you assure me of my life, and release me:” “This I will not say, but I still say as my lords said, that we will do our best in that respect.” “Yes, Sir Bailiff,” said I, “what would that signify; it has happened that persons have renounced their faith, and were put to death notwithstanding, as has been seen in Delft,” “Yes,” said the Bailiff, “some were also released.” This I had to ask him once, to hear what he would say; for we had talked about it together. Not that we intended to renounce our faith, but to hear what they would say. For it has never been my mind, nor have I ever had any inclination for it; but it afforded me a good reason, when they tormented us to renounce, to give them this for an answer. Why should we renounce our faith? our life is not assured us. We had many words together, but these are the principal things that were said which I have remembered, for my memory is not strong. If I were to write everything, I should require much paper, for it lasted full four hours. In consequence of its lasting so long, my fellow brethren were very sorrowful, for they thought and believed that I had been confined elsewhere away from them.