Reply to Martin Micron: How and What Micron Confessed During Our Second Discussion

* * * *

In the second place, I asked him whether he stood by the confession which he had made concerning the two Sons in Christ at the time of our first discussion. He answered, “Yes.” Then I asked Andrew, whom he calls Cananeus, to write it down, which he did in Micron’s presence, and it reads thus: “Two sons in Christ. The first, God’s eternal Son, born of him before time was, without mother, and incapable of suffering. The second, Mary’s son, or the son of man, born of her in due time, without father, and capable of suffering. In this son of Mary, who was capable of suffering, the Son of God, who was incapable of suffering, dwelt. So that the man Christ who died for us was not the Son of God; for he had no father.” See, this was his confession, which we all heard from his own mouth and which was written down in his presence. [Note 1]

When Andrew had written it down, Micron said, “Read it to me.” After it was read I asked him whether it had not been written down correctly. He replied, “Yes.” And now this untruthful man comes and writes that they frequently confessed that the Son of God died for us, while it did not happen otherwise than it is narrated here; and now in his writing he comes again and says that he had no father. For on the thirty-second page he writes: “As to the real origin of the human substance (which before us he called the second son), he had, according to the testimony of the Holy Scriptures, no father”; and he refers to Matthew 1, verses 2 and 3. And so the pure, Holy Scriptures (because they call Mary a virgin) must be the cover for his abominably false doctrine, even though they clearly testify in many places that God is his Father and that he is the Son of God, Luke 1, verse 31; Luke 9, verse 35; Matthew 3, verse 17; Matthew 14, verse 33; Matthew 16, verse 16; Matthew 17, verse 5; Mark 3, verse 11; Mark 9, verse 6; Mark 15, verse 39; John 1, verse 45; John 3, verse 16; John 6, verse 69; John 7, verse 28; John 8, verse 23; John 9, verse 37; John 10, verse 36; John 11, verse 27. See, this is the man who, according to his own writing, has discussed so cleverly and asserted the foundation of his doctrine so powerfully, as he falsely makes his followers believe; and who, to his own everlasting shame, has placed such a bright crown on his head, as he claims in his book. The proverb is true: “That honor shames those who seek it.”

In the third place, since he says that the man Christ had no father, I asked him whether he did not call him the Son of God. He answered, “Yes.” I asked him again for what reason he called him so: whether it was on account of his birth, or of regeneration, or of his creation, or of acceptance. For if he is truly to be called so, it must be for one of these four reasons; or else one would speak a falsehood as often as one called him so. I received this answer: “For none of these four reasons.” This is all the answer he gave me; but he looked for another retreat, so that he might not be caught in the net of truth. This question (left unanswered then) he now brings forward quite garbled, and says on page 173, “That he is called the Son of God on account of the union of the two sons” (which he artfully calls two natures, so that it may not sound too strange) — a union of which we can find not a letter in all the Scriptures. By this he publicly confesses that the crucified Christ Jesus, who has borne the sins of all the world and reconciled it to God his Father, was merely called the Son of God, and that God is therefore a God in name only and not a God in truth. Surely this is too great a blasphemy, that the almighty, great God and his blessed, beloved Son must hear it from such a man.

In the fourth place, I asked him whether he knew that Gellius Faber had issued a publication against us, and whether he had read it. He answered, “Yes.” Well, I said, how do you like it? “It is a very fine thing,” he said; “I have also let our brothers read it.”

Ah, Martin! I said, do you endorse that ungodly homily which is so full of falsehood, by which the word and ordinances of the Lord are so lamentably broken, and in which the most holy flesh of Christ is called a boose-geld* and ransom? If the Lord will help me, he will be answered; for when this happened, my reply was almost in print. See, I tell the truth. Then Micron said, “I have spoken to Gellius about the boose-geld; and he claims that it is a printer’s mistake, and that it should be loose-geld (a ransom).” Then one of ours said that loose in this sense means false or frivolous. Should Christ’s flesh, then, have been false or frivolous money? And so on. [* p. 365]

On hearing this I said: I have often thought to myself, how is it possible that a man could write like this? It must be a mistake. Reflecting on the matter, I said, I remembered that John A’Lasco and he were of one mind in this doctrine, and that A’Lasco wrote: “If Christ is holy, why then was he condemned by the judgment of the Father on account of sin?” Again, “Christ partook of no other flesh but that of sin, so that he might be tempted and subject to death.” Since they agreed, I thought, and since these sayings of A’Lasco openly testify that he (Christ) was not holy, but was of a sinful flesh, guilty of death, therefore it might in the same way be called by the learned a boose-geld and ransom. See, this is how I answered, and not otherwise.

When I told it in this way, Micron asked to read the sayings of A’Lasco, and at last, after studying them, he said: “It is very obscure.” Yes, certainly, I said: not obscure but ungodly. And this discreet reply of mine he has not only suppressed but lamentably garbled, to my disadvantage. Besides, he has left the writings of A’Lasco out of the narrative, and so he blames me for what others are guilty of. I will leave it to the all-seeing God and to his own mind whether he has written it with the Spirit of truth, which is entirely impartial, and with true Christian love, as one standing before God.

Since I have found it printed so in his book, and since the sayings of A’Lasco imply that Christ’s flesh was guilty of death, as has been heard, so that it may rightly be called a boose-geld and ransom, since he holds it to be sinful — then tell me, beloved, what have I said to make such an ado about, on account of which, as he perhaps thinks, he has so mortally wounded me? Besides, in truth it is their foundation and the unmistakable result of their doctrine. But in this way he must do Gellius a favor at my expense, although he once spoke quite differently about Gellius’ book to some preachers at Emden.

We then came to the inconsistency of concluding two persons in Christ. To this Micron answered: “We do not assert that there are two persons in Christ, but we say there is only one. For although the Word was one person from eternity, yet when it was conceived in Mary it was no person.” Beloved, mark what indiscretion he uses. He further said: “Although every man is a person, and although the man Christ was a man like any other man, yet the man Christ, by himself alone, was no person.” Is it not a shame that one has to repeat such ignorant words before intelligent persons? Paul truly asks: “Where is the disputer of this world?” First Corinthians 1, verse 20. When we had finished our arguments on this matter, I said, I understand that some of you say, “Menno said some time ago that the whole Christ was God’s Son, but he did not prove it by the Scripture.” Therefore I wish to do so now; and I will read you the Scriptures of the New Testament which testify that the whole Christ Jesus, from head to foot, visible and invisible, is God’s own, only and first-begotten, true Son, if you will listen patiently, as I did when you were reading. “Do so,” he said.

I read about twenty-four or twenty-five strong, plain Scriptures, to some of which I shall refer here. The first was, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of you shall be called the Son of God,” Luke 1, verse 35. Here the angel of the Lord testifies that Christ Jesus was to be the Son of God, and you, Micron, say that he was not.

The Father himself says, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,” Matthew 3, verse 17; Matthew 17, verse 5; Mark 9, verse 7; Luke 3, verse 22; Luke 9, verse 35. And you, Micron, boldly contradict it and say that he is not. Again, Christ said to the blind man, “Do you believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I may believe on him? And Jesus said to him, You have both seen him, and it is he that speaks with you,” John 9, verses 35 and 36. Here the visible, speaking Christ confesses himself to be the Son of God. And you, Micron, say he is not.

Christ says, “What if you shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before?” John 6, verse 62. Here Christ testifies that the Son of man was from above, and that he would return there again. And you, Micron, say that the son of man is not of heaven but of earth.

Peter answered Christ’s question, “Whom do you say that I am?” with “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16, verse 16; and Christ blessed him for it. And you, Micron, say that the man Christ is not the Son of God.

The centurion at the cross confessed him to be such. He said, “Truly this man was the Son of God,” Mark 15, verse 39. And you, Micron, controvert it and say that he was not.

All the apostles confessed Christ to be the Son of God, Matthew 14, verse 33; also John the Baptist, Nathaniel and Martha, John 1, verse 45; John 11, verse 27. And you, Micron, are not ashamed to say that he is not.

John says, “These are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through his name,” John 20, verse 31. Beloved Micron, take heed. In another place it reads, “He that believes not God has made him a liar, because he believes not the record that God gave of his Son,” First John 5, verse 10. “He is antichrist that denies the Father and the Son,” First John 2, verse 22. See, Micron, what kind of spirits you are we will let you judge by this Scripture of John. What is your answer to all these plain Scriptures which I have read?

He was again puzzled, as before in the first discussion when he was overcome on the subject of woman’s seed. Both he and Herman turned pale (as the brothers told me, for I did not notice it), and Micron said, “Most of these Scriptures I confess to be right and just.” Not all? I asked. I have not added a single word, but merely read from the Bible. Tell me which are not right.

I received no answer at all. But again he asked a strange question three or four times, which I refused to answer, wanting an answer to the Scriptures which I had read. At last he spoke, but merely deceitfully, to lead me away from my Scriptures, which he could not answer because they were too powerful and plain, and also because he still wanted to make a show: “They shall be answered,” he said. Then ask on, I said. “Do you believe,” he said, “that Christ was born of the Father, and seated with the Father, from eternity?” I let him ask the question again.

Martin, I said, you do not act as becomes a true and pious man. Is that an answer to my Scriptures? Immediately he began to boast that I could not answer his question. I was sorry that I had begun to discuss with such a perverse man; for I saw clearly that he was not prompted by the spirit of truth. I further said that I have never read in the Scriptures of such a birth as the one he inquired about, which implied a seat with God from eternity. If you read of it, I said, then show me where to find it.

“No,” he said, “we want to find it out from you.” Martin, I said, be ashamed. When I want to see the Scriptures, you are not willing to show them. He said again, “He wanted to find it out from me.” Man, man, I said, by this you show what kind of spirit there is in you. What indiscreet perverseness, to require me to show what is not to be found in the Scriptures! Heaven and earth have not yet stood six thousand years, and the Scriptures say that heaven is God’s throne and earth his footstool, and that God is an eternal God who has neither beginning nor end. If I should now ask what God’s throne and footstool were before heaven and earth were created, would you be obliged to answer me, when the Scriptures say nothing about it? Again I received the answer: “We want to find out from you.” Mark with what kind of spirit this man discussed with me.

Observing that the bait he threw out was meant to get something peculiar from me, I said to him: Micron, since you cannot stand before the truth, I can see what your object is. Therefore understand me, so that you may give a true account of me. Whatever the Scripture testifies concerning the eternal, divine form of Christ I sincerely believe, although I may not thoroughly comprehend it: that his goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting, Micah 5, verse 2; that he is the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1, verse 8; Revelation 2, verse 8; the eternal Word of the Father, his Wisdom and Son, by whom all things were created, Genesis 1, verse 1; Psalm 33, verse 6; Proverbs 8, verse 22; John 1, verse 3; Ephesians 3, verse 9; Colossians 1, verse 16; Hebrews 1, verse 2; the firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1, verse 15, who is before Abraham was, John 8, verse 58; and other like Scriptures I do not comprehend. But that there was a birth from everlasting, as you say, I cannot find in the Scriptures.

Since I cannot find this in the Scriptures, and since I am prepared to obey them unto death, I ask you to show me (as you ask it of me) where it is written, and by the grace of God I will not in the least controvert it; for I was certain that he could not show it. He answered again: “No, we want to find out from you.” Now judge the spirit of the discussion.

I will now leave it to the judgment of all impartial, reasonable readers whether Micron met us in discussion as a godly, humble, kind and pious Christian, to teach me and all of us, or to be taught by us in the matters pertaining to Christ Jesus by the Spirit and word of the Lord; or whether he met us as an ungodly, proud, cruel and infamous Pharisee.

I never heard of a more abominable discussion. In the first place, because he wanted to find out from us something which is not in the Scriptures. And in the second place, because I asked him to show it to me, and he would not do it for the sake of truth and love. But Micron knew that he could not find it in the Scriptures; yet by such trickery, after he had lost this foundation, he tried to make a show among his followers, who understood so little of the Scriptures. But he was caught in the net he set for us, as you may clearly see from the following account. For when I observed that he had lost all Christian reasonableness, that no Scriptures would avail anything with him, and that he strove for nothing else but to catch me in some expression or other which he might, by falsely adding to it himself, fasten on us to our disadvantage, I asked him to explain his question a little better: namely, whether he believed that Christ was born of the Father from everlasting, or that he was seated with the Father from eternity and separated from him. Three or four times he said, “Born.”

Born? I said. I do not contradict it; for you have heard my confession clearly enough. But explain your question. Again it was, “Born.”

Then I said to Herman, Do tell us, what is your faith? He spoke in his usual thoughtless manner and said frankly, “That he was seated, separate from the Father.”

Well, Micron, I said, is that your faith also? He answered again, Born. For the fox was afraid that he would be caught in his den.

Micron, I said, say yes or no. We have heard enough of your Born. Then he said, “Yes!” Well, I said, pay attention!

I suppose, I said, that you have read that there was a sect in ancient times which was called Triticole or Tritoites (Tritheists),* because they worshiped three Gods. If you have the same faith concerning the Holy Spirit that you have concerning the Father and the Son, then it is plain that you are Tritheists; for you divide them so, as being seated separate from one another, as we have seen. He made no reply to this at all. [* p. 368]

In the second place, I said, you are aware that Arius was judged a heretic because he said that Christ had a beginning? He answered, “Yes.” That is right, I said. But reflect. If Christ was with the Father from eternity, separated from him, as you say, having neither beginning nor end, then he is not the Father’s Son; for in that case he is not born of the Father. And if he is born in such a way that he was divided from the Father and separated from him, as you have it, then he must have had a beginning; for that the begetter must be before the begotten, in the natural sense you assume, is as clear as day. And whether you, then, are not Arians I will leave to your own judgment. I am still waiting to be answered.

In the third place I said, Some ancient authors have compared the eternal, divine Being to the sun; that is, they have compared the body to the Father, the Word or Son to the brightness, and the Holy Spirit to the heat. For as these three, the body, the brightness and the heat, are one sun, so the Father, his Word and his Holy Spirit are one God.

And as the brightness cannot be separated from the sun and still remain brightness, so the Word cannot be separated from God and still remain the Word. Yet the Word is not the Father, nor is the Father the Word. And therefore you sing daily in your temples, Lumen de lumine, that is, a Light of lights. Paul also says, “He is the brightness of the glory of God,” Hebrews 1, verse 3.

See, dear Micron, this is what the writers just mentioned have confessed concerning the eternal, divine Being, and you confess thus. I will leave it to your own judgment whether you have not forsaken their faith, and whether you have not made them false writers by your confession. He did not reply at all to this.

In the fourth place I said, You surely confess that Christ Jesus was from everlasting the almighty Word, Wisdom and Power of God? He replied, “Yes.” Well, I said, if such a birth took place, then, as you say, so that he was seated, divided and separated from the Father, then the Father must have been seated without wisdom, word and power from eternity, since they were separated, as you claim. This is too plain to be controverted, John 1, verse 1; Genesis 1, verse 1; Isaiah 40, verse 8; Baruch 3, verse 5. Dear Micron, consider how you blaspheme God. He did not reply a word to this.

But now he comes and says that Christ was born of the Father from eternity, although still remaining in the Father. Mark what a double tongue and unsteady spirit this is. At the time of the discussion Christ was, from everlasting, seated, divided and separated from the Father; and now he remained in the Father. In such a short space of time he has changed his mind on five points concerning the incarnation of Christ, as is shown in the “Admonition” written to him; and now he comes to cast the base stains of his own unsteadiness on me, while the merciful Lord by his grace and power has kept me steady for about twenty-one years in one sense and foundation of doctrine, despite the many artifices devised against me by so very many crafty spirits, as all must testify who have impartially read my books and heard my admonitions.

Here I would faithfully admonish all readers in love, and would humbly pray them for God’s sake, that no one will say or think that by these four answers to the question he proposed and explained I would change or forsake my doctrine concerning the birth of Christ, the eternal Word, before every creature. Not at all. For with all those who with holy Paul in truth confess Christ Jesus to be the firstborn of every creature, and that without the admixture of any human philosophy — with these I hereby confess myself to be of one mind, now and forever.

I declare that if Micron had asked, in accordance with the Scriptures, whether I confessed Christ according to his divine form to be the firstborn of every creature, I would immediately have answered him yes. That would also have prevented his irrelevant questions. But since his questions were the product of reason and not of the Scriptures, and since he would in this way make the Word a separate person from everlasting — of which not a single word is found in the Scriptures before his ascension — he was immediately defeated by the four inconsistencies concerning the eternal, divine Being, from which he could not extricate himself at all, as has been heard.

Mark also that he has reflected on the foolishness of the wisdom which he used against me without any Scripture, so that he is now ashamed of his own confession and words; for he says, “If I received the correct news,” that he never talked about “being seated.” If this is true, then, alas, it is too gross a falsehood. He also writes now that he was born of the Father from everlasting, but that he yet abode in him, as is also the doctrine of the Nicene council, of Athanasius, Erasmus of Rotterdam, Luther, Pomeranius, Melanchthon, Bullinger and the most learned persons, as can easily be deduced from their comparison of the sun, and also from the writings of some of them.

Again he uses philosophy and not the Scriptures, as he did in his first confession, which he has now eaten up. For the spirit of wisdom has not left us a single word at all concerning the ineffable, incomprehensible mystery of the eternal birth: whether at his birth before all creatures he became separate from the fatherly Being, or whether he remained ineffably one with it. For God is a Spirit, John 4, verse 24, and that Spirit is ineffable.

Since he again uses philosophy and not the Scriptures, the searching, curious philosopher might ask him again concerning the word born: How can one be born and yet remain in the begetter? I do not know where Micron can find a direct answer with which he could stand before the disputer. Therefore I wish the ineffable mystery were left with God. For all who want to follow their own intellect in this ineffable mystery, and maintain their opinion by it, are immediately caught in the snare of the disputer, no matter how he manages.

Since we clearly find and know that the Holy Spirit has hidden this mystery in the Scriptures, and has not revealed it to us in any way, neither by prophet, apostle nor by the Son himself; and since it is manifest that it cannot be explained by the intellect how short or how long, how near or how far he was to the Father, or whether at his birth he became separate from the Father or not, since he is a Spirit; and besides, since we learn from history, and find in our own time, how many piercing eyes are dazzled by this impenetrable brightness — therefore I warn all pious hearts who would walk with a good conscience before their God not to speculate about this ineffable and indescribable majesty of the immeasurable, eternal Godhead, and not to conclude, assert, teach or maintain anything more than the Holy Spirit has revealed and taught, lest by their fancies they make themselves a god which is not revealed to them by the Scriptures. For it is sufficient for all godly souls that they have such faith in God as his word directs and points out: that Christ Jesus is from everlasting the ineffable, eternal Word, Wisdom and Power of the Father, and the firstborn of every creature, an eternal, true, perfect, divine substance or being in, by and with God; and that this same one, by the power of the almighty, eternal Spirit, according to the promise, became in due time a true, mortal man, capable of suffering, in Mary, as the Scriptures teach.

For if we had needed more knowledge and understanding of this ineffable birth, the Holy Spirit, who rightly teaches his own in all godliness, would undoubtedly not have hidden it from us, but would have revealed or explained it to us by some of his holy apostles or prophets, or by the Son himself.

I hereby pray all pious hearts, for Jesus’ sake, to submit their intellect to the word of the Lord, to feel and believe concerning God as the Scriptures command and teach, not to climb higher nor descend lower, and to walk before God and his church with a patient, humble, contrite heart; and he shall find peace in it. Whoever fears God, let him reflect on what I write.

When he was again answered on his question and was unable to reply, he broke out with a disturbed mind, as it appeared, and said, “Do you also believe that Christ was nourished by Mary?” Yes, I said, I sincerely believe so. “Fie!” he said then, “what an impure Christ; for if he was nourished by her, then he must also have become impure.” He did not know what to say, as I thought, for surprise.

Dear Micron, I said, control your heart and tongue. We are speaking of his origin and not of his nourishment. And if nourishment could make him impure, which is contrary to Christ’s own word, Matthew 15, verse 11; Mark 7, verse 15, how much more the substance taken from such a body, from which the fruit should have come, as you say and teach; and you say that Mary was born of the impure, sinful seed of Adam, from which you say the flesh or humanity of Christ came. This you admitted yourself; nor could you produce a single Scripture by which you could prove her spotlessness, as I mentioned plainly enough in the narration of the first discussion.

See, honorable reader, here you have the principal substance of what Micron and Herman have suppressed in their narration. It is easy to guess for what purpose and with what intention they have done so.

Since it did not happen otherwise than we have told it here, and since it is well known to the all-seeing God, to Micron and Herman, as also to their own witnesses and all of us who were present, that he was quite outdone in the argument on the question under discussion, on which their whole foundation rests, so that the cause was already lost, had he not admitted it again; as also that there were two sons in Christ, and that the crucified one was not God’s Son, by which he had already forsaken the Son of God; and since he could not prove by the Scriptures the spotlessness of the flesh of Christ according to his view of the matter, nor that there were two persons in the one Christ, as he professes to believe, nor did he know how he could show the fatherless Christ (as he makes him) to be the Son of God; and since he could not reply a single word to all the plain Scriptures which I produced to prove that the visible, palpable, speaking and crucified Christ Jesus was God’s own Son; and lastly, since he was so inextricably caught in his own unscriptural, strange question; and since he is silent on all these things, not even touching them, and yet calls on the name and judgment of the Lord, and on my own conscience, that he has faithfully narrated the matter discussed — therefore I will leave it to the judgment of all reasonable, impartial readers whether he has written as a true writer or as a false one; whether he won the discussion or lost it; whether he has done justice to the truth and to us, or has done wrong; whether he sought the honor and glory of God, or his own honor and fame; and also whether he should be considered a pious, praiseworthy, honorable, blameless, true teacher, or an impious, unfaithful, ungodly, blameworthy and lying deceiver and slanderer; since he wrote out of envious partiality and carnality, without truth, and yet, to affirm his falsehood, seals it so solemnly, alas, as has been heard.

When I had answered his last question, they left me and went to the front part of the building. What was said there I cannot say for certain, for I was not there myself. But I was told by the brothers that he was still arguing there, even though the weapons had been knocked out of his hands by the force of the Scriptures. Also some of their members at the doors next to the street were too noisy in their talk. For this reason some of the brothers said they had better go, and asked them to help us all out of the gates. Of this he has so unworthily made “thrust out,” so that he might by it raise a greater stench and hatred against the pious and true, and give them a bad name.

Justly has the Holy Spirit likened this generation to the fearful locusts of the Revelation, whose shapes were like horses prepared for battle, who have crowns on their heads like gold, which however are not gold — one of which Micron and Herman have placed on each other’s head by their writings; their teeth are like the teeth of lions, and they have tails like scorpions, and there are stings in their tails, Revelation, chapter 9. Consider what the Holy Spirit means, and also that the serpent was to bruise the heel of the seed of woman, Genesis 3, verse 15. I think they have stung not a little by this writing of theirs. May the Lord forgive them and grant that they may yet some time find his merciful grace, if it is possible.

Had they now been people of contrite hearts, as they might reasonably be expected to be, small in their own sight, born of truth and gifted with the power of the word, they would have thought: What is the use of writing? Our cause is lost. And if we now defame them, we do so out of partiality and not with truthfulness; for it is manifest that they do not hate us, since they showed us such faithfulness and love in our time of need. But alas, there was not so much prudence, honor, reasonableness, reflection and love to be found with them.

As we have truthfully and plainly shown all that Micron artfully suppressed in his narration, to the dishonor of God and of his holy church, as has been heard, so we shall now by the grace of God briefly show the reader how far we differ from them in this matter, so that truth may thereby be more clearly distinguished from falsehood, and light from darkness.