Van Flekwyk Hermann was a Dutch Baptist, whose name has become memorable, in consequence of a Dialogue, which he held with Cornelius Adrians, a Franciscan Friar, of Dort, commonly called Broer Cornells, a man of a violent and bitter spirit, who was vociferous and severe in his discourses from the pulpit, not only against the Protestants, but against the government, and his own party, if they did not please him. Through the instrumentality of this individual,  Van Flekwyk Hermann   was burnt at Bruges, in Flanders, June 10th, 1569.

The " Dialogue " above alluded to was originally written in Dutch, and inserted in the oldest Martyrology of the Mennonites ; but has been expunged from the later editions. Brandt transferred it to his " Historia Reformationis quae in Belgio accidit," L. x.; and the late Dr. Toulmin published an English translation of it, as a tract, under the title of " A Dialogue between a Dutch Protestant and a Franciscan Friar. London, 1784." Before the execution of  Van Flekwyk Hermann  , it was ascertained by the Inquisitor, in the course of this Dialogue, that he had imbibed Antitrinitarian sentiments. The following is the substance of the conversation, which took place between them.

The Friar told Van Flekwyk Hermann  , that, if he turned Catholic, and ordered his children to be baptized, he would be only beheaded. The prisoner asked him, whether he would not be deemed a good Catholic, if he sincerely acknowledged that he had erred in the faith ? The Inquisitor replied in the affirmative. Hermann then asked, "Could you shed the blood of a good Christian, without committing a great sin ?" Brother Cornelius told him, in a furious tone, that, even in this case, he ought to suffer death, since he had been an apostate. " But," answered the prisoner, "the man, mentioned by Jesus Christ, who had a hundred sheep, did not cut the throat of the sheep which he had lost, as soon as he had recovered her. He put her upon his shoulders, and carried her home with great joy." The Dialogue then proceeded as follows.

" Inquisitor. You have blasphemed against the true body and blood of God, by speaking against the Mass."

" Prisoner. I have not said one word about the body and blood of God; and therefore I am not guilty of the blasphemy you lay to my charge."

" Inq. Are not the body and blood of Christ the body and blood of God ? Are not God the Father, and God the Son, one God ? Do you pretend to make two Gods of them ? Are you also an Antitrinitarian ?"

" Pris. Don't you say, that you offer up every day to God, in the Mass, his Son Jesus Christ ? When you speak thus, you distinguish God from the body of his Son; and yet you say now, that it is the flesh and body of God."

"Inq. What! Don't you believe, that Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity ?"

" Pris. We never call things, but as they are called in Scripture."

" Inq. Does not the Scripture mention God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ?"

" Pris. The Scripture speaks of One God, the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit."

"Inq. If you had read the Creed of St. Athanasius, you would have found in it' God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.'"

" Pris. I am a stranger to the Creed of St. Athanasius. It is sufficient for me to believe in the living God, and that Christ is the Son of the living God, as Peter believed; and to believe in the Holy Spirit, which the Father hath poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Lord, as Paul says."

" Inq. You are an impertinent fellow, to fancy that God pours out his spirit upon you, who do not believe that the Holy Spirit is God! You have borrowed those heretical opinions from the diabolical books of the cursed Erasmus of Rotterdam, who, in his Preface to the Works of St. Hilary, pretends that this holy man says, at the end of his twelfth Book, that the Holy Spirit is not called God in any part of the Scripture ; and that we are so bold as to call him so, though the Fathers of the Church scrupled to give him that name. Will you be a follower of that Antitrinitarian ?"

" Pris. We neither follow Erasmus, nor Hilary ; but we follow the Scripture, as they did."

" Inq. What does it signify, that the Holy Spirit be not called God in the Scripture, since he himself has taught Mother Church to call him so, as it appears by St. Athanasius's Creed ? But, if you believe the Scripture, why don't you believe the Divinity of our Lord ?"

" Pris. God forbid I should deny the Divinity of Christ! We believe that he is a divine and heavenly person; which is the reason why you put us to death."

" Inq. It is not true. We put you to death, because you will not believe, that Christ took his flesh from Mary his Mother."

" Pris. We believe that ' the word was made flesh.' "

" Inq. Christ says,' I and my Father are one ;' and else* where, ' He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.'"

" Pris. Christ says, also, ' That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us ; that the world may believe, that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me, I have given them ; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.' See also the Acts of the Apostles, iv. 32, and Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, iii. 28, and the Epistle to the Ephesians, v. 31."

" Inq. You have sucked the poisoned breast of Erasmus. * Appendix, No. i.

But, what will you answer to these words of Christ, ' He, that hath seen me, hath seen the Father'?"

" Pris. Christ says also, ' No one hath seen the Father, but he who is of God.' And in another place, ' No one hath seen God at any time:' and elsewhere, ' My Father is greater than I.' Compare this with Mark xiii. 32.—It plainly appears from all those passages, that the Father was not made flesh."

"Inq. You must not pretend to teach me that. I repeat it:—Christ, the second person of the Deity, or of the Holy Trinity, was made man. You refuse to call him God."

"Pris. I call him 'the Son of the living God,' as Peter does, and ' the Lord,' as the other Apostles call him. He is called in the Acts of the Apostles, 'Jesus of Nazareth— whom God raised from the dead.' And Paul calls him 'that man—by whom God shall judge the world in righteousness.' "

"Inq. These are the wretched arguments of the cursed Erasmus, in his small treatise 'On Prayer,' and in his 'Apology to the Bishop of Seville.' If you are contented to call Christ 'the Son of God,' you do not give him a more eminent title, than that which St. Luke gives to Adam, whom he calls also 'the son of God.'"

"Pris. God forbid! We believe that the body of Christ is not earthly, like that of Adam ; but that he is a heavenly man, as Paul says."

"Inq. Do you believe that Christ is neither true man, nor true God ? What is he then ?"

"Pris. Christ is the true Son of God, as John says, in his first Epistle. He is also a true man, as Paul witnesses."

"Inq. But does not St. John say in the same Chapter, that the Son is ' the true God' ?"

"Pris. No; for John says, 'We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true; and we are in him that is true, in his Son, Jesus Christ. He is the true God, and eternal life:' that is, the God, whom the Son has manifested to us."

"Inq. But St. John says, in the same Chapter: ' There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three are one.'"

"Pris. I have often heard, that Erasmus, in his Annotations upon that passage, shews that this text is not in the Greek original."

Upon this, Brother Cornelius, turning to the Secretary and Clerk of the Inquisition, who were present at this Dialogue, said:—"Gentlemen, what do you think of all this ? Am I to blame, because I attack so frequently, in my Sermons, Erasmus, that wicked, that cursed Antitrinitarian ? It is certain he says so : but this is worse still. He says, in his Annotations upon Luke iv., that a strange falsification has crept into the holy Scripture, by adding or omitting some words, on account of the heretics. Nay, he says that some marginal notes, which had been made by private men, have been inserted in the text. This Antitrinitarian, whom you see here, and the arch-heretic, Erasmus, have the boldness to tell us, that we have added these words, 'who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen,' in Rom. ix. 5. Or, they say that these words are only a doxology, and that they ought to be translated thus: ' of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all. God be blessed for ever. Amen.' Erasmus suspects that these words have been added, and pretends that the like additions are to be found in other passages ; these, for instance, 'Tu autem Domine,' &c. 'Gloria Patri, et Filio,' &c, and such other expressions, with which we usually conclude the lessons and prayers of the Church. As for the words of St. Thomas, 'My Lord, and my God!' he knows not what to make of them ; and yet he has the insolence to observe, that this is the only passage in the Scripture, in which Christ is called God." Then, turning to Van Flekwyk, he said, "Let us see, master Antitrinitarian, what you have to say upon these last words."

"Pris. Thomas expressed himself rightly ; for, does not David say, in the eighty-second Psalm, 'I said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Most High'? And Christ alleges the same words, to shew that he might call himself ' the Son of God.' See also Exodus xx. 8, 9."

"Inq. Answer this question. How comes it, that Christ did not say to Thomas, 'I am not thy God' ?"

"Pris. The words of David and John, above mentioned, may serve as an answer to this question. Tell me, in your turn, why Christ did not say to Thomas, after he had spoken the words in question, 'I will build my Church upon this rock,' as he said to Peter, when that Apostle declared that he was 'the Christ, the Son of the living God'? Nor did Christ say to Thomas, 'Flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, which is in heaven.' And why did Christ tell his Apostles, ' I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God'? Why did he say, ' My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me' ?"

"Inq. But if Christ is not God, how comes it that we call the holy Virgin, ' Mother of God'"

"Pris. It is because those of your communion generally affect to speak a different language from that of Scripture. The Virgin is called in Scripture ' the mother of Jesus,' and never ' the mother of God.' "

" Inq. Do you think we stick much to the bare words of Scripture ? The holy Council of Nice has decreed, that the Virgin should be called 'mother of God.'"

" Pris. Don't you believe, that the Council of Trent is as holy and venerable as that of Nice ?'"

" Inq. Yes, certainly; for the Holy Spirit has instructed us by this last Council, as well as by the Fathers of the Council of Nice."

"Pris. The Council of Trent has enabled me to judge of other Councils. The conduct of that assembly must needs give us a very bad opinion of the former Councils."

On hearing this, Brother Cornelius strongly inveighed against the prisoner. He called him " a blasphemer against the Holy Ghost," " Beelzebub," " a diabolical Antitrinitarian," and " an enemy of the mother of God."

"Pris. You acknowledge that there are three persons in the Holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that these three persons are but one God. The Virgin Mary is, therefore, the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit, as well as of the Son."

" Inq. Have I not demonstrated to you, by the Creed of St. Athanasius, that ' the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet that there are not three Gods, but one God' ?"

"Pris. If each of the three persons is not a distinct God ; if the three persons jointly are but one God; it follows, that the Virgin is the mother of the three persons. If it be so, what will become of your Council of Nice ?"

" Inq. May you be roasted in hell fire, you wicked and abominable Antitrinitarian! You would make a hundred thousand Doctors of Divinity mad."

Such was the substance of Brother Cornelius's conversation with Van Flekwyk Hermann . We learn from it, how a comparatively illiterate Baptist teacher, was enabled, with the help of a plain understanding, an honest and upright mind, and such casual helps as the time afforded him, to become an overmatch for one, who could only support his arbitrary, unscriptural positions, by human authority, and the sophistry of the schools.