Reply to Martin Micron: How Partially Micron Narrated Our First Discussion

When we had met for the discussion, I said to Micron, I hear that your name is Martin Micron. You are unknown to me, and I had never heard of you before you came here. But I understand that you have made quite a reputation in London, England, and that you have published writings, as I hear. Therefore my brotherly admonition to you is this: if in this discussion of ours you hear more powerful truths and a firmer foundation than you have heard or learned before, do not seek your own fame and honor, but the praise and honor of God. To this he replied: “Menno, this is also my admonition to you.” I said, I am here for that very purpose; and I have suffered for many years because I would gladly have the truth and follow it.

This brotherly admonition, given him in faithfulness of heart, he lamentably disregarded in the latter part of the discussion, since he was conquered every time in his false, antichristian doctrine; and he said to my face that I had blamed him for seeking his own praise and honor by his writing in London — something I had never thought of then, for I was not acquainted with him.

He called on his own people as witnesses, and these poor, enchanted children all agreed with him. At this I was very sorry, and said, Is the fear of God, then, not before you? There are now ten of you, all of whom answer to suit him. If there were ten thousand more besides you, you would not tell the truth in this matter. For how could it be possible that at the very start I should run up to a man with whom I was not acquainted, and of whom I had heard nothing but a good report, and say that he had sought his own honor with his writings?

Also, all of our brothers contradicted him and said, “Good Micron, you are mistaken; for this and this is how Menno admonished you, and this is how you answered him.” Yet it was of no avail. These unkind, bitter, lying and defaming words had, alas, to be published in his book. What kind of spirit this is, how he follows the unadulterated Christian truth, piety and love, and how faithfully he narrates the matter, I will let all impartial, reasonable readers judge by his dishonest adulteration of the words which I spoke to him with such good intentions. We then discussed some articles of which my writings are full, and to which it is useless to reply. Lastly, we came to the discussion of the incarnation, on account of which we are called such abominable heretics and deceivers by them — namely, because we confess with God the Father, with Christ, with the angel Gabriel, with Peter and with all the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Matthew 3, verse 17; Matthew 17, verse 5; Mark 1, verse 11; Mark 9, verse 7; Luke 1, verse 31; Luke 3, verse 22; John 1, verse 45; John 5, verse 22; John 6, verse 35; John 7, verse 21; John 8, verse 23; John 9, verse 37; John 10, verse 36.

His actual confession and foundation was that there are two Sons in Christ: the one eternal and incapable of suffering, the other temporal and capable of suffering; and that the one who was crucified for us was not the Son of God. This confession he did not make thoughtlessly or by mistake, but with premeditation and a sober mind, before us all; and he repeated it at least four or five times. Yet he calls on the judgment and name of the Lord that they frequently confessed with us that the Son of God died for us. Syrach truly says, “Many would rather do the worst than lose their honor; and do it for the sake of the ungodly,” Ecclesiasticus 20, verse 24.* [*]

I set out the inconsistencies of his belief, and after many long and broad assertions I let him read from the Bible undisturbed for an hour or an hour and a half, about the seed of woman, the seed of Abraham and of David, and about the fruit of the loins of David. When he had finished reading, I asked what he wanted to assert by it. “By it I assert,” he said, “that the man Christ is of the fathers, and that the Word did not become flesh, as you say.” This was the sum of his words.

I replied, I heartily acknowledge and confess all these Scriptures to be right and good; for they teach us and testify that such a Savior was to come. But now we will find out from the Scriptures of whom the human fruit comes, whether of the father or of the mother. On hearing this he said, “Are you going to find that out?” I answered yes; for I trust, by the grace of God, to be able to prove by the holy, divine Scriptures that the origin of the child is of the father and not of the mother, but through the mother. This, I think, was something new to him; for he said, “Sir, let us hear it.” I pointed him to First Corinthians 11, verse 8, where Paul says, “The man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.” On hearing this he interrupted me and said, “This is spoken of Adam and Eve.” Wait, I said; it reads further: “Even so is the man also by the woman.” Was Adam, then, by Eve? He was then silent, as one who is beaten. I showed him many plain Scriptures, such as Genesis 15, verse 4; Genesis 17, verse 6; Genesis 19, verse 32; Romans 9, verse 7; Hebrews 7, verse 10; Hebrews 11, verse 12. I also referred him to the genealogy, Matthew, chapter 1, showing that according to his foundation Christ must also have been a Syrian, a Canaanite, a Moabite and an Ammonite. I also made some natural comparisons, such as the sower, his seed and the soil; from which he tries to make it appear to the reader that I used my own intellect against him and not the Scripture. But, as the saying is, Micron’s little finger knows full well that the seed of the land and the seed of man are called by the same name in the Scriptures, and that Abraham also cast his seed, that is, sowed it, Hebrews 11, verse 11, although he garbles this in his writings and would apply the casting to Sarah. What we are to think of such willful adulterers of the holy, divine word I will leave to the impartial reader. It is the same means the serpent used when he led Adam and Eve into death, Genesis 3, verse 1. Kind reader, since the Scriptures, together with daily experience, openly testify to us that by the ordinance of God there are sowers, and also seed which is sown, there must also be a fit soil to be sown; for we do not sow in unplowed land, nor on houses, trees and rocks, as may be seen. And whether or not my comparison of the farmer, his seed and his field can stand according to the Scriptures, I will leave not to the slandering Micron and Herman, but to the reasonable reader.

When I had finished my argument I said, See, Martin, this natural comparison which I have set before you, you may consider at your leisure; but let us have a reply to my Scriptures. Then he seemed like one who is in doubt, and said, “Away with this philosophy of the seed of woman.” On hearing this I replied: I have set before you the plain Scriptures by which I have proved that the child is originally of the father and not of the mother; and you want it to be of the mother without the Scriptures. Tell me, kind sir, which of us two is using philosophy? You or I? He made no reply at all. But now he writes as if he had then said, “The words of Paul, First Corinthians 11, verse 7, should be understood as referring to Adam and Eve; for Paul wanted to humble the men, so that they should not exalt themselves above woman on account of their glory.” This is right in one sense, yet not according to Paul’s sense in this instance. For Micron wants to apply it to Adam and Eve, and Paul spoke it in reference to all who are born of Adam and Eve. For he says, “For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman.” Mark it, he says: By the woman. If Onan had done as he did, Genesis 38, verse 9, a thousand times, and besides him all men who have been from the beginning, no human fruit would be born from it. For the seed must have a proper soil to bear fruit and to beget according to the word and ordinance of the Lord; and therefore Paul says, “Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord,” First Corinthians 11, verse 11. I trust that such plain Scriptures can be understood.

Again, concerning the Scripture in Wisdom of Solomon 7, verse 2, Micron says, “It does not speak of man’s seed alone.” To this I reply: Micron must be a man who esteems the judgment of Almighty God too little, since he is not afraid to adulterate such plain words, or to obscure them with the breath of the abyss; for it is so plain that the Holy Spirit here in plain words ascribes to the father what belongs to the father according to the ordinance of God, and to the mother what belongs to the mother. * * I repeat that such plain words of the Scriptures are easily understood.

Again, to my pointing out to him how Sarah conceived of Abraham, and Rebecca of Isaac, Hebrews 11, verse 11; Romans 9, verse 7, he now replies (though in the discussion he did not refer to it) that the reason why Abraham and Isaac are called the origin of their descendants is to exclude other men, and also because woman has lost her privilege through sin. This is such glozing as if both the Scripture and that were lost. Therefore this is my brief reply: God does not require of anyone what he has not given, nor does he begrudge anyone what is given him; for he is a God of truth and not of a mere name. And if the Lord had done so for the reason Micron gives, then God would have taken pleasure in the name and not in the truth. He would also have given those patriarchs more than truly belonged to them, and taken from woman what belonged to her. Mark what kind of God the sophistry of Micron teaches. [Note 2]

As for the privilege of which he writes, I would in all love ask him what kind of privilege it was that woman has lost through sin. Is she no longer woman, and has she become unfit to fulfill the calling and office of a mother to which she was ordained by God? That she is still woman, and necessary to fill her place in the world, is too clear to need argument. Therefore I do not know what the privilege might be, since the Scriptures say no more than, “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you,” Genesis 3, verse 16. But something must be done in this way to deceive the simple reader, when flattery cannot give it a scriptural appearance.

Oh! oh!! If we poor children treated the Scriptures a twentieth part as they do (from which may the Lord keep us), and veiled the eyes of the ignorant as Micron does with his flatteries, great God, how they would be offended! And they would have every right to be. Nevertheless, however they teach and act, it is a welcome gospel to the poor, deceived world, as has commonly been the case from the beginning with all false prophets and their followers. He is allowed to break the bones of the passover and to cut off Samson’s hair, Exodus 12, verse 46; Numbers 9, verse 12, until the time comes when it is over with him and he must give an account of his deceit before the Lord.

After some passing remarks we came to the inconsistency that they had an impure Christ; and I asked him whether he confessed Mary to be of the impure and sinful seed of Adam. He answered, “Yes.” But he said she was pure, because the angel said to her, “Blessed are you among women,” Luke 1, verse 28. To this I replied: The Lord said to Abraham, “I will bless you,” “and I will bless them that bless you,” Genesis, chapter 12. Again, he promised the obedient parents under the law: “Blessed shall be the fruit of your body,” Deuteronomy 28, verse 4. Were Abraham, then, and all those who bless him, and all who are born of such pious parents, pure and without sin by this?

He said, “Christ was pure and without sin, and that because he was not of human seed.” I replied: From such an explanation the greatest inconsistencies would follow.

He then replied: “God was the cause that the nature of Adam was corrupted.” I noticed that he was unable to reply and did not know what to say. I asked him, Why? Because, he said, “God said, ‘In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.’” So I hear, I said, that God was the cause of Adam’s transgression? — together with some other remarks. “No,” he said, “I do not say so.” Oh, Micron! I said, consider what inconsistencies you put forward, and what a weak, unscriptural foundation it is that you would assert and maintain! He did not reply again; yet he claims in his writing that he asserted and maintained the purity of Christ against us. Whether that is not seeking one’s own honor and giving an untrue account of the discussion I will leave the reader to judge. And how the assertions which he now makes in his writings will stand according to the Scriptures, we will show by the Scripture. He writes: “We can conclude nothing under sin but what the Scriptures conclude under it.” In this he is right, yet he contradicts himself. For the Scriptures conclude Adam and all his seed under sin. Therefore it must be so with Adam and all his seed; this cannot be denied, First Corinthians 15, verse 21; Romans 5, verse 18; Galatians 3, verse 22; Ephesians 2, verse 1. He further writes: What the Scriptures make free, we also should consider free. Again he is right, but he contradicts himself; for the Scripture makes Christ free, and therefore we also consider him free, because he is from above, of God who is pure, and not from below, of impure Adam — which Adam, I repeat, is according to the Scriptures concluded under sin with all his seed; and the Scriptures do not contradict themselves.

He further writes that the apostles and prophets would have had no need to say so much about the holiness of Christ if he were from above and not of Adam. This is so simple that it is surprising. For if Christ were such a pure man of impure Adam as our opponents say, then the Scriptures would contradict themselves; or else Adam must have had two seeds, one of which was corrupt and the other remained pure, which is not what holy writ teaches. Observe what blind arguments he puts forward.

Lastly, he writes: “What God testifies to be holy, man cannot make common or unholy,” and cites Acts 10, verse 15. Here he compares the most holy holiness of the flesh of Jesus Christ to the flesh of the animals which under the law Israel was forbidden to eat, Leviticus, chapter 11; Deuteronomy 14, verse 7, and which now under the gospel are allowed as clean, Matthew 15, verse 11; Mark 7, verse 15; Acts 10, verse 15; Romans 14, verse 20; Titus 1, verse 15 — as if Adam in this way was made unclean by one word (like the animals under the law), and now again by one word (like these same animals) was made clean in this seed of his (of which, according to him, Christ was to be begotten). By this he blasphemes the most holy holiness of Christ’s flesh. O abominable flattery!

See, dear reader, this is the best foundation on which Micron can build his assertion of the purity of the flesh of Christ, after two years of study — and at the time of the discussion he did not put forward a single word of it. You may consider for yourselves whether he does not make his doctrine suspect by such flattery.

And when he was defeated by the Scripture in his assertion about the seed of woman, and could find nothing to resolve the inconsistency, and was hedged in on all sides, he put the following question, as if he were so confused that he did not know what to say and yet wanted to say something, so that it might not be said that he was silenced: “Do you believe that Mary was a human being?” For God’s sake, hear what he put forward!

On hearing this I became recklessly excited and answered thoughtlessly: She certainly was no brute. What kind of base question is this? See, this is how the brute came into play; about the cause of it he is silent, and he brings it forward quite strangely and little to my honor.

I confess before him and before all readers that I did not answer him respectfully, and I am sorry for it; for it would have been proper to give him a considerate answer and not to return foolishness for foolishness. But to which of us the greater blame should be attributed — to Micron with his surprisingly indiscreet question, or to myself with my unseasoned answer — I would gladly leave to his own consideration, if he were impartial.

After this had taken place I had very little desire to discuss with him at that time, as I saw that he set himself so entirely partially against the truth, although he had nothing to put forward by which he could defend his foundation; so that I was forced to say, Good Martin, do not take it amiss; it would be well if you learned to know yourself better, for you are still too much of a novice in the Scriptures to defend the foundation of your doctrine in this matter.

“Listen,” he said then, “I will tell you something else.” But since it had no foundation at all and was nothing but nonsense, and since he went from one thing to another, I recklessly answered: Away with your talk. All you bring forward is nothing but anathema.

He then became very angry and cried out three times: “The pope has taught you this.” No, I answered three times, with the same words, not the pope, but Paul has taught me this, Galatians 1, verse 8. For your philosophy about Christ is a strange gospel, which is not taught us by the apostles nor by the Scriptures. And I did not say a word about First Corinthians 16, verse 22, although he, without any truth, said and wrote so — the like of which, alas, he often does out of malice to defame me.

I acknowledge again that I might have borne with him more patiently than I did. Yet the Son of God has not lost his sonship and rights by my inconsiderate answer; nor was Micron’s antichristian doctrine made Christian doctrine by it. I became very tired of answering his foolish questions; for I began to observe by what kind of spirit he was prompted.

Besides this, he has quite reversed the narration of the discussion; he has enlarged his ten words into very many, to flatter his cause; he has abbreviated mine in many instances, to weaken our cause; he has written many things which were never thought of; and the things by which he was quite stunned he has not mentioned at all. Yet this audacious man dares to call on God as his witness that he has given a true narration. O Lord!

Well, everyone will have to give an account of himself before his God, let him adorn his falsehoods and seal them as much as he pleases. By the grace of God I shall affirm my humble truth with yes and no, as Scripture teaches. Whoever will may believe my writings on that; and if he will not, I cannot help it. I will call on nothing higher. I have suffered much pain and trouble for about twenty-one years for the sake of the truth, of yes and no, and have borne it submissively; nor shall I, by the merciful help of the Lord, leave it in my old age on account of Micron and the false doctrine of all antichristians, however Satan may portray me through his authors and servants.