Reply to Martin Micron: Of Gen. 3: 15

Micron, in his writing, reports that I said that we should not understand the seed of woman, Gen. 3: 15, in a carnal, but in a spiritual sense only. To this I reply unreservedly, that the assertion is without foundation. For never in my life was it my intention that I would exclude Christ from this promise. For, as deceived Eve was a literal woman, thus also, was the deceitful serpent a literal serpent, through which the devil deceived her. For the Lord said, “Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life,” Gen. 3: 14, something which the devil, who is a spirit, could not do. If we, now, are to understand the seed of woman as a generative seed, as does Micron, then also, the seed of the serpent must be understood as being a generative seed, between which two the enmity would exist, solely; for the one seed must be after its own kind, for the reason that it is of one name. In that sense the literal serpent, only, was vanquished by Christ. Understand rightly what I write.

On the other hand, if the serpent be a spiritual serpent (as it indeed is) represented by the deceitful serpent, then the woman must also be a spiritual woman, represented by the deceived woman, and thus, again, the seed be after its own kind; for as the serpent is spiritual, so also, is her seed spiritual, which is falsehood, Jn. 8: 44, of which alas, she begets such children as write such deceiving, lying, infamous, and partial books as Micron and Herman have done in this instance.

In the same manner, as the woman is spiritual, Eph. 5: 25; Rev. 12: 6; 19: 7, thus, also, is her seed spiritual, that is, the truth of which (eternal glory be to God for his grace), she begets such children as walk in the truth, sincerely speak the truth, and for the sake of the truth, willingly submit to death with yea, and nay.

And behold, between these two, the children of truth, and the children of falsehood, there is an eternal enmity. The seed of woman vanquishes, and that by sincere, firm faith, in christian patience by the Spirit and word of the Lord; yet it receives many stings in the heel from the vanquished seed of the serpent. For their name is slandered, their doctrine is ridiculed, their life is hated unto death, their effects are stolen, their flesh is burned, and they are drowned, and must expect to be daily bitten by the venomous, bloodguilty seed, as I, in my weakness, have experienced for more than twenty years.

Behold, if we understand it in such a sense as we have here shown, the spiritual things remain spiritual, carnal things, carnal, and the Scriptures remain unbroken. But the Lord save me from hereby excluding Christ from the promise. For I am aware, by the grace of the Lord, that Christ is the power, the beginning, means and end of the whole promise, and that he will remain such forever. For he is the spiritual husband of this spiritual woman, Jn. 3: 6; Rev. 19: 7; Eph. 5: 25. His Word is the seed of woman, which Word he is himself, as he says, “Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning,” Jn. 8: 25. He spoke and taught the truth and he is the truth, Jn. 14: 6. He spoke and taught love, and he is love, 1 Jn. 4: 8. In short, he spoke of wisdom, righteousness, holiness, and deliverance, and he is himself Wisdom, Righteousness, Sanctification and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1: 30.

He alone is the victorious Prince, and triumphant Conqueror who was promised by those words, who has bruised the serpent’s head for us, and also, we in him, by him, as Paul says, “In all these things we are more than conquerors, through him that loved us,” Rom. 8: 37. And “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me,” Phil. 4: 13, and, “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” 1 Jn. 5: 5.

Inasmuch as it is manifest from all this, that Christ and his Spirit, word, wisdom, truth, righteousness, sanctification, peace, deliverance, and all other attributes can never be separated in power and truth; and as it is manifest that where the one is the other must be also, therefore I will not leave it to the judgment of Micron and Herman, but to the judgment of the impartial reader, whether I exclude the man Christ, in whom our salvation is, from this promise, and say that it should only be understood spiritually, notwithstanding the allegory is spiritual in him, as Micron reports.

It has always been my understanding that he was hereby promised unto us of a woman, and have so stated it in some of my books; yet he must thus misquote my writings, as alas, he often does. I would not know for what reason I should contradict it, as he is not here promised of a man, but of a woman, Isa. 7: 14, of a virgin; from which we must deduce that he was not to be the impure seed of mortal man, but the Son of the Most High.

* * * *

Behold, here you have our incontrovertible reply, founded on the Scriptures, to all the unfounded, wordy, sophistic and powerless arguments which Micron and Herman adduce in their writing about the seed of woman.

I do not see why the godly women, of which he writes and to whom he complains, should not submit to this, as I allow their husbands and lords, whose honor, all virtuous and honorable wives should gladly maintain, and to themselves each in her sphere, according to the measure of eternal truth, that which their God the Lord, has allowed them himself, by his word, by the works of his creation, according to his divine pleasure.

I will not say anything about what shame Micron commits against all honorable women by his unseasoned writing; I do not delight in chiding and upbraiding. It suffices me to assert the foundation of our doctrine, to the praise of the Lord. He must once in a while maliciously pierce me, that he may thereby the more embitter some hearts against me, and that he may make truth still more hated and abhorred by our hated name.

Micron writes: Jesus Christ is called the Son of God on account of his eternal and ineffable generation of God the Father, according to his divine form. Thus he is also called the son of man on account of his being born in the fullness of time, of a human being, of Mary, according to the flesh or human natnre, Matt. 1. Hac ille.

Answer. I would here faithfully admonish the kind reader earnestly to consider my reply to Micron’s confession, and to judge it with a frank, impartial heart. I trust, by the grace of God, that if he do so he will discover the adulteration and deceit of our opponents in great clearness; and he will see, on the other hand, that the truth is with us.

In the first place, if we compare the verbal confession which he made to us, with his confession in writing, he appears to be as slippery as an eel. For at the time of the discussion he confessed repeatedly before us all, that the crucified Christ Jesus had no father or near father; and says so yet at different places in his writing. Nevertheless he now comes and writes, but without the truth, that they repeatedly confessed before us, that the Son of God died for us. He repeats the same song, but he sings it to the unintelligent, and to a little better tune.

It would sound too much out of tune thus bluntly to forsake the crucified Christ Jesus, and say, that he had no Father, as he did before us.

In fact, I do not know what to say or to think of this man. Now the man Christ is the Son of God, then again he is not; now God is his Father, then again, he had no father. For he writes pointedly that the man Christ, who died for us was generated not of God, but of the seed of Mary, and that he had no father. If he then, be of her seed, and not generated of God, and if he had no father, as he says, then it is plainly falsehood, lies and deceit, to say that the Son of God died for us. If we take the best view as to his meaning he can be no more than an adopted, or a nominal Son, without truth, let him gloze the matter over as much as he can. I will leave the impartial reader to consider whether this is a simple and plain reasoning according to the truth, or an equivocal and dark argument of falsehood.

Now observe, first, his equivocation together with the unconformable, wavering, lightminded foundation of his doctrine, and his intolerable error, to teach that the crucified Christ Jesus was not God’s own true Son, but merely a nominal Son, as was heard. I do not see what greater blasphemy one could commit. Yet he is a good teacher and writer, and that for the reason that he has so finely, but falsely, portrayed the old heretic, Menno.

* * * *

Thirdly, so long as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures that the Son of God is called the son of man, and the son of man, the Son of God for the reason that there was a union of the two as they frequently assert without the Scripture, so long, they mistake the truth as often as they call the Son of God the son of man, and the son of man the Son of God; for the name is given, as Micron himself confesses, in truth and in fact. And how this assertion of his agrees therewith, the reader may consider. To mock man is disreputable; but to mock God is too abominable and blasphemous.

Fourthly, so long as they do not prove to us by the Scriptures, that such union took place, as they assert, so long it is the lies and deceit of the old serpent, as it is not according to Scripture. For it is manifest that it is no union, as they call it, but a fearful division of the most holy and undivided person of Christ, whereby he manifestly makes two persons and sons in Christ, which are born of two different persons, at two different times, in two different forms; that he robs the crucified Christ Jesus of his beloved Father, and the Father of his only begotten, beloved Son; that he makes the greater part of the most holy flesh of Christ of gentile origin; that he esteems the man Christ no higher than an adopted or nominal Son of God; that he points us to an unholy, sinful, accursed offering, to an impure seat of justice, High Priest, Savior, Mediator, Advocate, and Christ, of the unholy, sinful, accursed and created flesh of Adam; that in fact, he makes Mary both the father and mother of Christ; that he breaks and disputes the whole Scriptures, together with the ordinances of God concerning generation; and that he includes so many abominable inconsistencies in Christ that a feeling heart is pained thereat, when the matter is earnestly considered.

Behold, upon such a foundation has Micron built his false doctrine of the union of the Son of God, which he teaches all through his book, in so many smooth sentences and garbled Scriptures. It is easily perceived what kind of an abomination, Babylon, the mother of whoredom, pours from her golden cup, by her messengers and servants. Woe unto those that drink thereof; for she will so enchant them that they will become drunk, and fall.

If we would have the true understanding of Christ being also the son of Abraham and David, and not break or go beyond the Scriptures, then we must keep in view the ordinances of God, and as it is manifest that Christ Jesus is not in truth confessed to be the Son of Joseph, but the Son of God, by the Scriptures, therefore it may be easily discerned how or in what manner Christ is also the Son of Abraham, and of David, and why he is thus called in Scripture, because of his human birth, as Paul says, “To Abraham and his seed (that is, his sons), were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ,” Gal. 3: 16; Rom. 1: 3; 9: 5; 2 Tim. 2: 8.

In the same manner we should consider also that both the evangelists, Matthew and Luke, count the genealogy up to Joseph, and not to Mary. Luke makes no mention at all of Mary, but says, “Being (as was supposed), the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,” &c., Luke 3: 23. Mark what the evangelists mean. From this it is plain that they do but show the generation of which, according to the promise, is born he who is forever the Jehovah, Immanuel, Savior, and Lord of the world.

For, if such a man as was Christ, should have been begotten of human seed, as our opponents say he is, who was to be the Deliverer of the whole world, as is Christ Jesus, then the Scriptures would point to the one of whom he was generated and originally came, and not to the one of whom he was not. For the Holy Ghost is a Spirit of truth, which teaches and instructs rightly. According to the foundation of the learned, our salvation would not be attached to the Scriptures, but to an uncertain meaning. For it is manifest that there is not a word found in them, which shows that Mary was of David’s generation. Luke says that she was a cousin to Elisabeth who was a daughter of Aaron, Luke 1: 5, 36.

* * * *

Kind reader, understand me. I do not mean that Mary was not a daughter of David, but I say that the Scripture does not say so. But, inasmuch as our opponents found their whole structure upon the ground that the man Christ was to be a natural seed and son of David, and that by Mary, therefore they must have the sure testimony of the Holy Scriptures whereby they can prove it to be as they assert, before one can accept such an important thing concerning the salvation of all the chosen. Since it is founded on mere presumption and not on the Scriptures, it may be that she was a daughter of David, and again, it may be that she was not, inasmuch as they did not follow one rule in regard to marriage, as may be seen by sacred history, and whereas it has nothing to do with the matter, and was, according to the evangelists sufficient that she was the wife of a son of David, that the promise might be fulfilled in the generation to which it was promised, as was frequently said, therefore I do not contradict it in the least that she was a daughter of David. But a sure testimony of the Holy Scriptures, on which the foundation of eternal salvation should be built, they can not adduce, to prove their doctrine.

* * * *

If they should say that it was to be a virgin, according to the word of the prophet, and that therefore, it could not be of the seed of man, then I would answer in plain words that they thereby pronounce their own sentence that Christ was not the natural seed and son of Abraham and David, but their supernatural and promised seed. For he was not of one of Abraham and David’s sons, but of one of their daughters, who was a virgin, and knew no man, but was promised to one of David’s sons, begotten of the ineffable, eternal word of the Almighty, great God, which she conceived by faith, Jn. 1: 14. Being the first and only begotten, true Son of God, on account of his eternal Father, and the promised, given, and born son of Abraham, Judah and David, on account of his mother, who was a daughter of Abraham, and the wife of Joseph, the son of David, as heard, Heb. 1: 2; Jn. 1: 14; 3: 16; 1 Jn. 4: 16.

I will now conclude all the passages of the Holy Scriptures which treat about the seed, fruit and branch of Abraham and David, with the following remarks. Inasmuch as the Savior, King, Prince, Conqueror, and Prophet, graciously promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and David, Gen. 12: 3; 18: 18; 22: 18; 26: 4; 28: 14; 49: 20; 2 Sam. 7: 12, was, in due time, born a true man of one of their daughters, according to the promise, Luke 2: 7, to whom the kingdom and throne of David was promised beforehand by Isaiah, and again at his conception, when it was already fulfilled in the letter by the angel, that he was to reign forever therein, Isa. 9: 6; Luke 1: 29, which kingdom and throne he did not receive literally, but spiritually, for it was then already fulfilled; his kingdom is eternal, Luke 19; and shall not be left to other people, Dan. 2: 44; and as he is acknowledged all through the Scriptures as the first and only begotten Son of God, which he could not be if he were generated of impure human seed, as our opponents say, and not of God; and as his house or temple which he builds, is not a literal house, of literal wood, stone, metal, gold, and silver, as was the perishable house of Solomon; but as it is built of living precious stones, of the imperishable gold and silver, 1 Cor. 3: 12, upon the immutable foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, put together by the Holy Ghost, Eph. 2: 19; 1 Pet. 2: 4, 19, therefore it is thereby manifest that the promise made to David, should be understood in the old, literal form, as fulfilled in Solomon, and in the new spiritual being, Christ, 1 Kin. 5: 5; Ps. 89: 37; 132: 11; for if we measure the genealogy of his blessed flesh the most minutely, in the line of David, then we find that he was no more than the son of the daughter of David, while there is not a word in all the Scriptures to prove that she actually was one of David’s daughters.

Behold, such a foundation has the strong argument of Micron, as he boasts, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, something which they, doubtlessly, will not; for they would rather strengthen and aid him in such a cause; it is the strongest fortification and shield of hell, as may be clearly seen by John. But it takes a heavenly gate to prevail against it, the strong Spirit and word of the Lord, against which neither the gates of hell, nor the devil can prevail.

Whosoever desires to have more information upon this subject may examine our reply to John A’Lasco, impartially, and by the grace of God, he will find the true foundation and meaning thereof.

And behold, thus our foundation and doctrine remain firm and invincible; that Jesus Christ is the only, first-born, and undivided Son of God, Heb. 1: 6; Jn. 1: 49; 3: 16; 1 Jn. 4: 9; Rom. 8: 32, by whom he has created heaven and earth, and the sea with their fullness, Gen. 1: 1; Ps. 33: 9; Jn. 1: 1; Eph. 3: 9; Col. 1: 16; and that he is not the impure, sinful, accursed, earthly seed of Abraham and David, as our opponents philosophize it.

Truly, he is the new Melchisedec, the King of perfect righteousness and of eternal peace, whose Father, mother, and generation, according to the true foundation of the Holy Scriptures are unknown to the whole world, the glorious Prince and wise Lord, the peaceful Solomon, who is seated upon the spiritual throne of his father David, prepared for him by his eternal Father, in eternal glory, and shall reign forever over the house and kingdom of Jacob, Isa. 9: 6, 7; Luke 1: 29. Consider whether we do not rightly teach you in accordance with the Scriptures.

Micron criticises my sixth point, and remarks concerning my saying, That God’s Son did not die for us according to their doctrine, is caused by a misconception on my part, that I do not, or will not understand the union of the two natures, the divine and the human, into one person, Christ; and says, That in both discussions they have repeatedly stated that God’s Son died for us.

To which I reply thus: First, that they can not truthfully say that they once stated, during the discussion, that the Son of God died for us. For they have distinctly asserted, all the time, that the man Christ had no father, or as Micron sometimes said, that he had no near father, and repeats it in different places in his book, as any one may read and see.

O, dear Lord, what a terrible abomination that mortal man and an earthly creature dares so boldly lie against his own conscience, that he dares so lamentably belittle the King of all honor, so unrestrainedly deceive the poor souls, and commit such great deceit and shame against the word of the Lord! O, that they could see what they are doing!

Secondly, I reply as I did before him, that there can not be a word found in all the Scriptures about this union of the two sons, of God’s Son and the son of man, in one person, Christ, which he, generally, artfully calls two natures, and which he compares to the union of the body and soul of man.

That the body and soul of a living man are one person, is as clear as the light of the sun.

But, that such a man, body and soul, which is a perfect person, was thus united into one with the Son of God who is eternal; or, that the eternal Son of God thus united himself with the son of man (which two sons they call two natures, without Scripture), may be read in the flatterings of Micron, but we do not find it written in the Scriptures. You may further consider what kind of a Christ they teach you, by comparing this criticism of ours with the Scriptures.

Thirdly, I say that if Micron desired to deal with the readers as a faithful teacher, he would not make use of such equivocal and dark reasoning, but would express and explain his foundation and meaning without any duplicity, and say that the eternal, immortal Son of God put on a temporal, mortal son, body and soul, of the flesh and blood of Mary, and that he has thereby delivered us; for this is, in this matter, the proper meaning, sense and understanding of all their writing, flattering, and teaching, as their public confession, before us all, clearly testified and implied, as was heard.

But now he deals unfaithfully; for he means two actual sons, of which one was divine and the other human and calls them but two natures, that the unsuspicious reader may not be offended at the harshness; which nature is but a property of him who possesses it, and which is not the one himself who possesses it. For, if one sees a man, he does not say that is a human nature, but that is a man; for the property is not the being itself, but the being possesses the property. And if Christ had but the properties, namely, the natures, and if he had not the being itself, which are the substances, then he was neither God nor man; for the natures are not the being itself, but the being possesses the nature. Therefore it would be becoming in Micron to deal unequivocally, and not to deceive his readers and hearers by such incomprehensible, strange words, that they might comprehend the foundation of his doctrine, and understand what he means. For we teach in such a manner that it may be understood.

But it would offend the thoughtful reader thus boldly to confess and teach that there are two Sons in Christ, and say, that the crucified Son was not God’s Son, but a sinful, acccursed man, of the sinful, accursed flesh or seed of Adam. And therefore they must fix it so as to retain their honor and name with the world, and enjoy their salaries and liens at ease.

Behold, thus we must, by virtue of the Scriptures, lift the fine cloak of the Babylonian whore, which Micron and the preachers would keep down by their glozings, wrong explanations and adulterated Scriptures, since they live off her table, that you may rightly observe and see their infamy, loathsome diseases, lumps, and deadly leprosy, understand it spiritualy, and that you may, in the fear of your God beware thereof.

I cordially admit, however, that Christ had two natures; but not in such a sense as Micron believes, but in a scriptural sense; in this manner Peter writes to the church of God, and says, Ye are partakers of the divine nature, 2 Pet. 1: 4; whereby he clearly testifies that there are two natures in a christian; the one, the human nature with which he is born of Adam, and the other, the divine nature of which he partakes by faith, in the birth which is of God, by the Holy Ghost.

If there are, then, two natures in one christian, as there are in truth, why then not in Christ? For, as he is the only and true Son of God, having no other origin but of God, then he must also have the nature of the one of whom he is, this is too plain to be controverted. That he had the divine nature he has proven by these manifest, apparent attrributes of a true, divine nature; as by his perfect righteousness, truth, holiness, love, and miracles.

As he had the divine nature, I say, on account of his divine origin, thus he also had the unblemished, pure, human nature (like unto the nature of Adam, before the fall), and that by reason of his true humanity. For as truly as he was the Father’s Almighty Word from everlasting, so truly also, he, in the fullness of time, became a true, passive, mortal man, Jn. 1: 14; 1 Jn. 1: 1. And as he thus became a true man he must also have had the property of a true man, which is a true, human nature (though not corrupted), or else he would not have been a true man; this is incontrovertible.

Although the Scriptures say nothing about the two natures in Christ, yet I admit it with the above understanding; for I am sure that one can not separate the nature from any thing any more than he can separate the light from the sun, the heat from the fire and humidity from water.

That he had the true, human nature as well as the divine, he has shown by the apparent fruits of the real, human nature, as by hungering, thirsting, being weary, sighing, weeping, suffering and death.

Behold, thus I plainly confess according to the style and ordinance of the holy, divine Scriptures, that there were two natures in the only, undivided person and Son of God, Christ; and not as Micron does, who makes one Son of two sons, and one person of two persons, without the Scriptures, which he calls two natures, and according to his glozings, were born at two different times, of two different persons, in two different forms, and which several natures remained distinct, and were incomprehensibly united into one person, Christ, according to his writing, without the Scriptures. Observe which of us points you to the Scriptures.

It is hardly necessary to reply to some Scriptures which he adduces, whereby he tries to prove that not the Son of God, but the son of man, suffered. Of these Scriptures, in my opinion, the strongest is, that Peter says, Christ was “put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit,” 1 Pet. 3: 18. For who ever suffered but in the flesh? Also, “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin,” 1 Pet, 4: 1. Mark, Christians also suffer in the flesh, as Christ himself did, yet they are not one son, composed of two sons, as Micron says that Christ is.

Nobody can suffer otherwise than in the flesh, for Christ himself says, “Fear not them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul,” Matt. 10: 28; Luke 12: 4. Again, to the murderer, “To-day thou shalt be with me in paradise,” Luke 23: 43. His flesh hung upon the cross, and was afterward buried, from which it is very plain that it was said in regard to his immortal Spirit.

Again, Christ said, “Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit.” He did not cry, Father, into thy hands I commend thy Son with whom I have been united into one person, and which was my Spirit. For one of three conclusions must be drawn from Micron’s writing. Either the indwelling Son of God whom he generally calls the divine nature, and the son of Mary, whom he generally calls the human nature, together, must have had one Spirit or soul, and this Spirit he must have commended into the hands of the Father; or that the two remained alive at the death of Christ. First, the immortal, eternal Son of God, which had dwelt in him. Secondly, the Spirit or soul which he had received of Mary, or else the eternal Son of God must have become the Spirit of a mortal man, which had put on a dwelling place or tabernacle of Mary, which he offered for us, as was said in treating about the inconsistencies.

From which it follows that it is mere quicksand upon which they build their doctrine of the two natures, or two sons in Christ, according to their manner; and that it can stand no better before the power of the divine word, than the stubble can stand before the fire. And thus we firmly hold our ground that Jesus Christ is the only, undivided, and true Son of God; and that he is not one Son composed of two different sons, as is the anti-christian, false foundation and doctrine of our opponents.