Reply to Gellius Faber: The Confession of the Learned Concerning Christ

The confession of the learned concerning Christ is “that the eternal Word, the second person in the Godhead” (these are their words), “the eternal Son of God, has taken to himself the nature of our flesh. Indeed, that the whole man Christ, who was sacrificed and who died for us, is the natural seed of the woman, of Abraham and of David. The seed of the woman” (they say) “according to the ordinance of God, Genesis, chapter 3; with which seed, namely, Mary’s flesh and blood, the divine person mentioned, the eternal Word and eternal Son, has united himself, and so became one person and Christ. Or, that the whole person Christ Jesus, with body and soul, is the natural fruit of the flesh and blood of Mary, in which the eternal Word dwelt. The man Christ Jesus died, but the Word remains whole and intact.”

Answer. It seems very strange to me that the learned never cease to reproach us with their indiscreet words and to bring more and more tribulation on us through the bloodthirsty; we, who plainly and undeniably have on our side the firm and unchangeable foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, indeed, also the blessed word and testimony of Christ; while they have neither common reason nor the Scriptures on their side, as may be seen. For it is as clear as day that all the following grave and intolerable absurdities and abominable errors result from their confession.

First, a divided Christ, of whom one half must have been heavenly and the other earthly; as some even dare to assert boldly that the person of Christ consisted of two principal parts, namely, God and man.

Secondly, an impure and sinful Christ; for the defense says, Christum non alterius ullius carnis participem factum esse, quana quae and peccato (ut tentaretur) and morti simul obnoxia esset, and so on; that is, Christ partook of no other flesh but of sin, that he might be tempted and be subject to death. In another place the defense says concerning Christ, Si sanctus (inquit) quomodo sub peccatum in Patris judicio condemnatur? that is, If Christ is holy, why then is he condemned in the judgment of the Father because of sins? This agrees perfectly with the writing of Gellius, that the righteousness of God would not leave us unpunished without the ransom. [Note 1]

Reader, observe: how could they speak more blasphemously of the most holy manhood of Christ, indeed, of the Son of the Almighty and eternal God, than they do by this? For if Christ was flesh of our sinful flesh, which is guilty of death, and if he was thus tempted by his own flesh, then the sin by which he was tempted must have dwelt in his flesh, and then he died as a debt he owed, and not for the sake of grace. This is too clear to be refuted. Nor could it be otherwise if we assert that Christ’s flesh was of Adam’s sinful flesh.

Again, if his holy, precious flesh was such a ransom as Gellius claims, how could the righteousness of God be fulfilled and satisfied by it, according to the holy will of God? Whether this may not rightly be called preaching an impure and sinful Christ, and robbing our most holy Savior and Messiah (something of which they accuse us), I will leave all right-minded and reasonable people to reflect on in the light of Scripture.

Thirdly, two persons in Christ, namely, the one the second person in the Godhead, and the other the man of Mary’s flesh, in which human person the divine person dwelt. This error is opposed not only by us but also by Luther, who says, “Beware, beware, I say, of the Alleosi; it is the devil’s mask. For in the end it will set up such a Christ as I would not want to be called after; namely, that Christ from then on is nothing more, and that his suffering avails no more than the suffering of a common saint. For if I should believe that only human nature suffered for me, then that Christ would be a poor Savior; he would need a Savior himself. In short, it is beyond words what the devil seeks and intends by this Alleosi. We say, God is man and man is God; we cry out against them that they divide the person of Christ, as if it were two persons. [Note 2]

For if the Alleosi stands, as Zuingli teaches it, Christ must be two persons, one divine, the other human.” So he says. Reader, observe to what kind of Christ they teach and point us.

Fourthly, two sons in Christ, of whom the first is the Son of God without a mother, and the second the son of Mary without a father; in which son of Mary the Son of God is supposed to have been embodied and so united, as they claim. Just see what a monstrosity they produce!

Fifthly, the person Christ Jesus would then be neither the first nor the only begotten Son, but the third son of God in order, who was not born but created by God; and he would be, as Pomer says, the adopted son of God, Quod et Bonosianorum sive Monosolitarum hæresis est. I say he would be the third in order. For the first is the Word; the second, the first Adam, Luke 3, verse 38; and the third, the man of Mary’s flesh, who is supposed to have been adopted as a son of God, as has been heard. [Note 3]

Sixthly, then we are not redeemed and delivered through God’s first and only begotten Son, but through Mary’s son, created from Adam’s impure and sinful flesh; as the defense and his followers also dare to assert in the face of all the Scriptures, saying that the nature embodied in the loins of Adam, which also committed the transgression, will, according to the righteousness of God, make amends for it and pay it.

Seventhly, if we are thus delivered through Adam’s flesh, as they claim, then we should give thanks not only to the Father for his Word, but also to Adam’s flesh, through which our deliverance is brought about. All right-minded persons must admit this.

Eighthly, if the man Christ was a creature of Adam’s flesh, and we were delivered through him, as the learned claim; and since God says through the prophet that he will not give his glory to another, Isaiah 48, verse 11; and since it is plain that we should honor our Redeemer, Christ, no less than we honor the Father; then it must follow either that God did not speak truly through his prophets, or else that they were all idolaters, because they gave divine homage to a creature of Adam’s flesh, something which is so strictly forbidden in the Scriptures and which was often severely punished by God. See, reader, such is the inconsistent, impure and divided Christ to whom the learned point you and whom they teach you by their sophistry and garbled Scriptures: a Christ composed of two persons and two sons, of whom one person and son is supposed to have dwelt in the other, and of whom one person and son is supposed to have suffered and the other not, and the one who suffered is supposed to have been the son of Mary and not of God. I think this may well be called forsaking the Lord who bought them, and preaching a strange Christ whom the Scriptures never knew.

O reader, dear reader, how lamentably the deceitfulness of the old serpent robs us, through the reasoning of the learned, of this noble, exalted and precious Messiah, and points us to an impure, sinful, earthly and created being; never minding that the Holy Spirit openly testifies that the Word of God was made flesh, John, chapter 1; and that this same incarnate Word is our Emmanuel and our God, Matthew 1, verse 25; the Lord who justifies us, Jeremiah, chapter 23; the first and only begotten, John, chapter 1; God’s own Son, Romans, chapter 8; come down from heaven, John 3, verse 13; the living bread from heaven, which was not his invisible Godhead, as the learned say, but his visible flesh, as he himself testifies, John 6, verse 51; come forth from God, John 16, verse 30; the First and the Last, Revelation 1, verse 11. He humbled himself and did not take the form of a great emperor or king, but of a humble servant; he came down to the level of man, took on the form of man, and obeyed his Father to death, indeed, to the death of the cross; truly God and man, man and God; God at all times, of God and in God; God’s eternal Word, who in due time, according to the promise made to the patriarchs, became a miserable, suffering and mortal man in Mary, the pure virgin, who was of the seed of Abraham and was married to a man of the house of David named Joseph (on which Joseph the evangelists base their genealogy). He is not divided, as the learned teach, but an undivided, only Christ and Son of God, pure and spotless; planted in her by the Holy Spirit of God, of the seed and Word of his Father; conceived by her through faith; fed and nourished in her virgin body; and in due time he became man, as Isaac was brought forth by Sarah and John by Elisabeth. He was born of her according to the promise; obedient to the law; a light to the world; a preacher of grace; an example of righteousness. And at last, not on account of his own sins, for he knew no sin, but for our sins, he was innocently condemned to death, nailed to the cross, died, was buried, arose, and ascended to his Father in heaven, where he dwelt before; and there he is our only and eternal Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, Expiator and High Priest with God his Father, Mark, chapter 16; Acts, chapter 1; John, chapters 6 and 16. And so the Almighty and eternal God, our merciful heavenly Father, alone receives the honor and praise through this his Christ, our eternal Messiah, his first and only begotten Son and eternal Word, and not through the impure and sinful flesh of Adam, as the learned teach. [Note 4]

Observe, reader, which of these confessions is the more powerful and has the stronger foundation in the Scriptures, and in which of the two the greater love of God and the higher honor to Christ can be seen: whether God took a man of the seed or flesh of Adam, as the learned teach, or whether he gave his eternal Word, power and wisdom, indeed, the heart of his own body (to use a common expression), into death for us, as all the Scriptures teach us that he did.

O what a priceless word this is: “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, and so on,” John 3, verse 16. Again, “In this the love of God toward us was revealed, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world”; and again, “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” First John 4, verses 9 and 10. Note: he has sent his Son, and not a man of the seed of Adam who had no father. Paul says, “He did not spare his own Son,” Romans 8, verse 32; and other explicit sayings.

[☞ Here, in the original works of Menno Simon, follows a brief argument concerning the incarnation of our Lord, which the publishers have thought proper to omit, because they felt that the book would be more edifying to the general reader without it.]

In the seventh place he accuses us, saying, “That, secondly, their church has not existed since the time of Abraham, and that she is therefore not the true church, is clearly visible from the fact that they, in disobedience to the will of God, refuse to the children of the church the seal of the eternal covenant, which has been practiced and maintained in the churches since the time of Abraham.”

Answer. Abraham was commanded by God to leave the land of his fathers and of his kinsmen, and to leave his father’s house and move to a land which the Lord would show him. Abraham believed the Lord and departed as the Lord had commanded him, Genesis 12, verses 4 to 6.

Again, the Lord commanded him to offer Isaac, whom he loved, his only begotten son by the free woman, as a burnt offering. Abraham believed God; he was obedient and prepared to do whatever God commanded, Genesis, chapter 22; Romans 8, verse 32.

In the same way he was commanded to circumcise himself, his son Ishmael (Isaac was not yet born) and every male child of his household, and all the males after him on the eighth day after their birth. Abraham believed God and did as the Lord commanded him.

See, this is how Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness, Genesis 15, verse 6; Romans 4, verse 3. In the same way God has spoken to us in the New Testament, not only by angels and prophets, as he did to Abraham and the patriarchs, but also by his Son; and this Son has commanded that the gospel should be preached to all the world, to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, and that whoever believes it should be baptized, Mark, chapter 16; just as Abraham was commanded to circumcise all males, Genesis 17, verses 10 to 13.

We have received this command from the mouth of Christ; therefore we believe it, just as Abraham believed in his time. We believe it, I say, and act accordingly: we teach those of understanding minds, and baptize those who believe; not in disobedience, as Gellius says, but in obedience to the clear, plain and express ordinance and command of Christ, God’s own Son.

Dear reader, observe. The Lord Christ thanked his Father and said, “This is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent,” John 17, verse 3. In another place he says, “If you continue in my word, then you are my disciples indeed.” Note: he says, “If you continue,” John 8, verse 31. The merciful and affectionate Father, in his great kindness, has revealed to us the glorious knowledge and the wonderful, deep mystery of his beloved Son, and besides this has given us such fruit through his Spirit that we dare not willfully and knowingly depart one hair’s breadth from his holy word, ordinance and command, as is testified and shown to the whole world by our tribulation, misery and loss. Yet, alas, according to the judgment of Gellius and of the learned, we are not the believing church nor the disciples of Christ, as may be seen from their writings.

See, this is how the righteous judgment of the Almighty and great God is passed on the wise and learned of this world: the clear and plain signs by which the true disciples and church of Christ may and must be known are counted by them an abomination and error, and those who have received light from above through grace are not counted Christians by them, as has been related.

In the eighth place he accuses us, saying, “They must admit that their church has existed only sixteen or seventeen years, that is, since the time Menno Simon began preaching. For they do not want to be counted at all among the Munsterites, Amsterdamites and Oude Kloosterites, among whom Menno lost a brother, lest they be called seditious or the seed of sedition.”

Answer. We point to Christ Jesus, our only and eternal Prophet and Messiah, sent by the Father, who is the only true Cornerstone in Zion, the true Teacher, Lawgiver, Commander, Intercessor and Head of his church, together with all his angels, apostles and prophets, through whom he spoke in former times, and also to his Spirit, word, ordinances, commands, prohibitions, usage and example. And if Gellius, or any other person under the canopy of heaven, learned or not, can convince us by divine truth that we teach or maintain anything contrary to his word and ordinances, then I for my part sincerely desire to correct the wrong and to follow what is right. He who has purchased me knows this; for I want to be saved. But if they cannot do this by the truth, but only with a show of truth, and so blaspheme it, as all the perverse do, and have to leave our testimony unbroken, then it is sufficiently proved that our hated, despised and small church is the true, prophetic, apostolic and Christian church, which began with the first righteous people who walked according to the will of God, and not with me, as Gellius, alas, maliciously says.

Secondly, I would say this: since he has at different times accused us of the errors and sedition of the Munsterites, of which we are clear and always have been, before God and man, I would beg him to take a look at his own infant-baptist church, of which he is a teacher and head, and see how abominably they have rebelled against each other for years; how they have afflicted countries and nations with their accursed, ungodly wars, and have given the blood of countless human beings, together with their poor souls, to the prince of hell, and have laid them as an offering on his altar; of which, alas, the learned with their seditious writings, together with the priests, monks and preachers, were the principal cause, which is as clear as day to many reasonable persons.

Thirdly, I would say that, in my opinion, he so indiscreetly alludes here to the error of my poor brother for one of these two reasons: either to make me suspect to the reader, as though I too was formerly of the same mind as my brother, or to injure my reputation by it. For my brother is no longer subject to the punishment of men, which he once suffered in the flesh, but only to the judgment of God. It seems that Gellius cannot master the envy and bitterness of his heart; for nobody can be corrected or taught righteousness by such a course.

If he did so for the first reason, namely, to make me suspect, then all those who heard me formerly, while I was still in the papal church, and all who have ever heard me up to this hour, and also my published writings, will be my witnesses that he suspects me wrongly; for I never thought of such a thing, much less taught it.

But if he did so for the second reason, namely, to stain my reputation, then he should know that I and mine, I trust, never harmed him or his in the least; and also that my poor brother, to whom he so cruelly alludes, did no greater wrong than that he, alas, erroneously defended his faith by force of arms and repaid the violence done against him, as all the learned, preachers, priests, monks and all the world do. I suppose that I have deserved this cruel allusion by nothing other than my faithful love, because I have in sincerity of heart pointed him and all the preachers to the divine truth of the word, and have admonished them for their own well-being. And how this allusion, which cannot have been made except in envy, agrees with honorable conduct and with the fear of God, all reasonable readers may judge by the Scriptures and the common rules of decency. May the kind Lord grant that he may rightly come to know the heart from which this undeserved allusion comes, so that he may purge it and sincerely repent. This is the revenge and punishment which I call down on him.

In the ninth place he accuses us, saying, “That we cannot prove that infant baptism is an antichristian abomination, nor show from the antichristian ordinance who was its founder. It can also be proved,” he says, “that infant baptism has been practiced ever since the apostolic times, long before the violence of antichrist, which was still unknown, or at least very weak, at the time of Augustine.”

Answer. We teach and practice the baptism that was commanded by Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, that was taught by his faithful witnesses, the apostles, in clear and explicit terms, and that was handed down to us by their practice, which is the baptism of believers, Matthew 28, verse 19; Mark 16, verse 15; Acts 2, verse 38; Acts 8, verse 36; Acts 10, verse 48; Acts 16, verse 33; Acts 19, verse 5; Romans 6, verse 3; Colossians 2, verse 12; First Corinthians 12, verse 13; Titus 3, verse 5; First Peter 3, verse 21. Now whoever will teach and practice any other baptism must show by the Scriptures where it is commanded. But if they cannot do this, as it is impossible to do, then it is already proved that it is not Christ’s baptism but that of antichrist, however finely it may be decorated with learned words. This is too clear to be denied.

But as to his assertion that the violence of antichrist was still unknown at the time of Augustine, or that it was at least feeble, it is too absurd to deserve an answer. Whoever will may read history, and he will find very clearly that at the time of Augustine antichrist was in full honor and reigned with his doctrine in the hearts of men.

In the tenth place he accuses us, saying, “If they were the true messengers of God, who are to purge and deliver the church of Christ from such abominable, antichristian errors, they should not be a separated sect; for the prophets and all the faithful servants of God, by whom God has often purged his church, did not separate themselves from the church and set up a church of their own, but they remained with the church and gave their faithful labor to the church at the peril of their lives.”

Answer. Whatever Gellius does, it seems he must slander. I say again: take Christ Jesus and all his prophets and apostles, his Spirit, word, ordinance and life; and if he can convince us by them that in any article we are at fault and contrary to their teaching (his slandering amounts to nothing), or that we do not conform to it, or that in our weakness we do not agree with it, I will grant that we are a separated sect. But if he cannot do so, as it is impossible for him, and still calls us a separated sect, he shows by this that he is no better judge of the church of Christ than Tertullus was before Felix, and the Jews at Rome before Paul.

I would further say that if he can prove to us that the faithful prophets mixed with the worshipers of the calf of Jeroboam, with the servants of Baal and with the abominations of Israel, which they so zealously rebuked, and remained united with those who disobeyed the law; and also that the holy apostles admitted the Pharisees and scribes, together with other stubborn persons, into the communion of their churches, then we grant that he has good cause to rebuke us and to write as he does. If they did not do so (and they did not), but on the contrary rebuked by the power of the Spirit the abominations that crept in from time to time, according to the pure word and ordinance of God, at the peril of their lives, then he must admit that he accuses us without cause. For we do nothing other than, after the example of the holy apostles and prophets, rebuke all false doctrine, unrighteousness and abominations with the pure, apostolic teaching, Spirit, ordinance and word of our Lord Jesus Christ (without which no true church of Christ can exist); avoid what is wrong; and faithfully, in love and purity, teach and spread the saving Christian truth, by word of mouth and in writing, to all hungry hearts, at the peril of life and possessions.

Lastly, I would say: since he calls us an excluded sect because we do not unite with them, why have he and his followers separated from the papistic and Lutheran churches? If he answers, Because of their abominations, then I would say again that we do it for the same reason. For they forsake the Son of the true and living God, and point us to an earthly creature of the unclean and sinful flesh of Adam as our Savior; besides, they do not follow the command and ordinance of God in regard to baptism, the Holy Supper and separation. We will never, at any risk, want to be of one church with those who seek their reconciliation and salvation in the sinful flesh of Adam and who reject God’s testimony of his Son and his ordinance; but we desire to be of one church and body with those who give the praise to God through his Word, with those who confess the whole Christ as the only and first begotten Son of God, and who abide unchangeably in his holy ordinances, example, Spirit and word. Let those of understanding minds understand what the word of the Lord teaches, John, chapter 10.

In the eleventh place he accuses us, saying, “From this it follows that the calling of their doctrine is wrong, and that their whole church, service and walk cannot help toward salvation, but can only lead to the corruption and destruction of the true churches; and therefore they do not suffer as innocent and harmless Christians, but as busybodies in other men’s matters” (he refers to First Peter, chapter 4), “except that they want to suffer for a cause about which they must be doubtful themselves, and for which no martyr ever suffered.”

Answer. As the Spirit of Christ and of unfeigned love accepts all good and godly actions as right and godly, so also the spirit of antichrist and of bitter envy explains everything that is right and godly as wrong and ungodly. For it is testified with possessions and life that we dare not willfully and knowingly depart one hair’s breadth from the word and example of the Lord, but judge everything according to the doctrines and usages of the apostles, as far as the Lord gives grace. In our weakness we would gladly conform our lives to the requirements of the Scriptures, and gladly seek the praise of God and the salvation of our neighbors at the peril of possessions and life. In spite of this he dares to write that the calling of our doctrine is wrong, that our walk and actions do not lead to salvation, that we cause all manner of corruption and disorder, and that we do not suffer as Christians but as evildoers who are busybodies in other men’s matters. See, this is how all the good deeds of the godly are always explained the wrong way around.

O reader, beloved reader, if only the poor, ignorant world would sincerely accept this despised doctrine of ours, which is not ours but Christ’s, and faithfully obey it! Then they might change their deadly swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; they would level their gates and walls and dismiss their executioners and hangmen. For all who accept our doctrine in its power will, by the grace of God, not want to injure anyone on earth, not even their most bitter enemies, much less wrong or harm them by deeds and actions; for they are the children of the Most High, who sincerely love all that is good, and who in their weakness avoid what is evil, indeed, hate it and are hostile to it. Yet we must hear that we suffer for wrongdoing, as has been heard.

But as to his assertion “that we suffer for a cause about which we must be doubtful ourselves, and for which no martyr ever suffered,” he should know that if we doubted our faith at all, we would not press the seal on it so deeply with our possessions and blood as we do; for a house built on the sand cannot withstand such floods of water and windstorms as come on us daily, Matthew 7, verse 25.

Nor do we suffer for an uncertain cause, as he says, but for the sake of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; for the sake of his holy, precious word and ordinances; for the sake of the sincere confession of God and Christ; for the sake of obedience to the Scriptures; for the sake of which all who have rightly suffered according to the will of God have suffered from the beginning, as may be plainly and clearly drawn from secular and sacred history.

In the twelfth place he accuses us, saying, “That they are the church and Israel is false, since they stain the true church of Christ with many errors which they daily produce and bring forward as from the abyss of hell; destroy the true sheep of Christ; unreasonably adorn themselves with the holiness of the church; cause strife and dissension concerning the articles of faith; are carnal; sneak about and preach in secret; and do not agree with the elders of the churches, as said before.”

Answer. If the spirit of truth had been the writer here, the game would doubtless have been reversed and this accusation laid on our opponents. For they still maintain and uphold some gross errors which antichrist formerly brought forward from the abyss of hell (to use his own expression), both by doctrine and by force; and by these they cause the godly much affliction and tribulation, cause many a pious child to be deprived of possessions and life, adulterate the truth, preach falsehood, are carnally minded, and in fact deny that the man Christ Jesus is God’s only and first begotten Son. We, on the other hand, with our small, despised number, shun and forsake all the antichristian abominations and errors; build up the church of Christ and place it again on the true foundation; publish and proclaim again the clear and plain truth to many, by word of mouth and in writing, at the peril of life and under the displeasure of the world; confess the whole Christ as the true, only and first begotten Son of God, as did the angel to Mary, John the Baptist, Peter, Martha, and the Father himself from the high heavens; and rightly use his ordinances of baptism, the Supper and separation, as all did from the beginning who rightly knew God and acted according to his will.

See, reader, these are the most important accusations he has brought against us. That they are for the most part artful fabrications, false explanations, false suspicions, false accusations and partial charges, by which he obstructs the course of divine truth, maintains falsehood, insults the godly and consoles the impenitent in their easy life, is fully proved in this reply of ours.

Last of all he writes of us, saying, “Experience fully teaches that their teachers and prophets are not the teachers and prophets of God. And that they are not the people of God I have perhaps already proved too powerfully. From this, then, it is clear that our magistracy is right not to let them go on in their wicked course, but to stop them; and they might, out of pastoral and fatherly faithfulness or concern for the church of Christ, speak and act a little more harshly toward them, lest the church be quite destroyed. But then we would be their persecutors and bloodhounds.”

Answer. Jeremiah, Micah, Elias, Christ Jesus and Paul could not be called the true prophets and servants of God; nor can we. But the great Lord will in due time make it plain who are the faithful prophets and servants of God and who are not.

Again, to his saying that we are not the people of God, we answer with holy Paul that it is a very small thing that we should be judged by the judgment of men, and especially of men who are so directly opposed to the ordinance, will and word of God, as may be seen in the case of Gellius from his writing. Indeed, kind reader, if he and preachers like him acknowledged us to be the people of God, they would thereby testify that they are not; something which an ambitious, carnal person who seeks reputation and fame will never do.

Again, regarding his approval of the magistracy hindering our course, which he calls wicked, I would say that the longer and the more he writes, the more indiscreet and offensive he becomes, and the more he shows his blindness. If he is a preacher called by the Spirit of God, then let him show a single word in all the New Testament by which he can prove that Christ or the apostles ever called on the magistracy to defend and protect the true church against the attack of the wicked, as, alas, he calls us. No, no. Christ Jesus, with his powerful word and Holy Spirit, is the protector and defender of his church, and not the emperor, the king or any worldly potentate. The kingdom of the Spirit must be protected and defended by the sword of the Spirit, and not by the sword of the world. This is too clear to be disputed, according to the doctrine and example of Christ and his apostles.

I would further say: if the magistracy rightly understood Christ and his kingdom, they would, in my opinion, rather choose death than meddle with their worldly power and sword in spiritual matters, which are not subject to the judgment of man but to the judgment of the great and Almighty God alone. But they are taught by their pastors to outlaw, imprison, torture and kill those who are not obedient to their doctrine, as may, alas, be seen in many different cities and countries.

In short, kind reader, if the merciful Lord in his great love did not temper the hearts of some of the magistrates, but let them go on according to the fiendish urging and blood-preaching of the learned, no pious person could survive. But some are still found who, in spite of the crying and writing of the learned, suffer and bear with the miserable and for a time show them mercy; for which we will forever give praise to God, the Most High, and for which we feel very grateful and thankful to such kind and discreet rulers.

But to his writing that out of fatherly and pastoral concern and faithfulness they might use harsher means against us, I would say this: if he had entered in at the right door with Christ, who is the Prince and Head of all true pastors, and if he could taste in his heart the friendly and lovely Spirit, nature and disposition of Christ, he would not think at all of such a resolution against the blood of others, much less advocate it and call for it. This I know for certain, for the Spirit of Christ is not of such a nature, John 10, verse 2; First Peter 2, verse 3.

Reader, observe that here he does not write plainly that the magistracy should put us to the sword. He does this because he does not want to be called a bloodhound or persecutor; nevertheless he makes it understood that if they should do so, he would call it a praiseworthy thing. Whoever is not completely without understanding understands well what he hints at here. O, a doctrine of blood!

O that he could grasp the force of the word which the Lord speaks: “You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning,” John 8, verse 44. For since he encourages the bloodthirsty by such writing, and I have myself heard from his own mouth that it is right to persecute and kill someone on account of his faith (understand: such faith as they think heretical), he has therefore burdened his soul with innocent blood. I say innocent blood, for neither he nor anybody else on the face of the earth can, by the grace of God, convince us by the force of truth that we act or do anything against Christ or his word, or that we deserve the punishment and sword of the magistracy.

He should further know that this blood-doctrine of his is contrary not only to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, God’s own Son, and of his servant Paul, but also to the doctrine of Luther; see his book “De Sublimiori mundi potestate.” It is also contrary to the doctrine of Hieronimus, Augustine, Theophilactus, Anselmus, Remigius and others, who unanimously agree that heretics should not be killed but admonished and convinced, and that if they do not repent after admonition, they should, according to the word of God, be separated from the communion of the church and shunned. [Note 5]

Besides, this stone he has thrown might fall on his own head. For what greater and more terrible heresy, deception and blasphemy can be imagined than to assert that the pure and holy flesh of Christ is a ransom for sin; to adulterate so sadly his ordinance and the apostles’ clear and plain doctrine of baptism; to neglect exclusion as the word of God requires it; to slander the pious; and to console and encourage the impenitent and carnally minded by garbling the Scriptures, as he has constantly done in his writings from beginning to end?

If we were to resolve in this way against those who are wrong in doctrine or faith, as he says we should, then we would have to begin with him, because he is a defender of such great errors, as may be plainly seen by comparing the writings of us both.

May the merciful, dear Lord grant him and all our opponents to see the right foundation of truth, understanding hearts to understand it rightly, and a willing, free and new mind to believe it and follow it with sincerity. Amen.

Here, dear reader, you have my forced answer to the unseasoned, blasphemous writing of Gellius, which he published and printed in the year 1552 against the unadulterated truth of God and his scattered church, in which he so lamentably adulterates the saving doctrine of Christ, and so miserably accuses the innocent, pious hearts before the whole world, that I could not neglect to answer it, by virtue of my office, to which I was unworthily ordained by God through the pious. I had to refute him with the word of the Lord and publish it through the press, as he in the first place has done against us; to the praise of God and his truth, to the justification of the innocent, and to the instruction of the humble.

Whoever seeks and strives after truth may find it, for it has been shown very clearly; but whoever despises it does not despise us, but Christ Jesus, who taught it to his church through his holy apostles and has left it to us by the testimony of the Scriptures through his Holy Spirit.

I hereby offer myself to you and to the whole world, if these writings are not enough for you: let me have safe conduct to an open and free discussion with Gellius and the learned. If I cannot maintain my doctrine and faith by the power of the Scriptures, and cannot prove their doctrine and faith to be deceiving, then I will not refuse to acknowledge my fault before the whole world, to retract my doctrine, and to give myself and my writings to the fire. But if I can establish my doctrine, then I desire and ask nothing more than that they acknowledge their fault, stop deceiving the people, repent, teach the people the truth and flee from falsehood. With this I commend you to God; he will guide your feet in the way of peace and lead you all into the unadulterated, pure knowledge of his eternal, saving truth. Amen. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with all who sincerely seek and fear him. Amen.

MENNO SIMON.