Clear, Incontrovertible Confession: The Confutation

Before I proceed to refute the arguments of our opponents, I would first faithfully admonish the kind reader not to mistake the shining brightness of the eternal Godhead through his high-soaring genius, and not to have the audacity to undertake to fathom this ineffable depth, lest, when he thinks that he has fathomed it, he at once dazzle his eyes and suddenly fall over the precipice. For it is manifest that many clever and sharp minds have been mistaken and have made fools of themselves by their high-soaring intellect.

The Tritheists held and taught that there were three Gods.

Arius divided the second as being the least of the first substances.

Macedonius said that the third being, namely the Holy Spirit, was no God, but a servant of God and of the Son.

Ætius and Eunomius taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were different things or beings.

The Origenists held that the Son could not see the Father, and the Holy Spirit could not see the Son.

Maximinus feared that the Father was a part of God, and that each person was one third of the Trinity.

The Metangismonites said that the second person was in the first as a small vessel is in a larger one.

The Allogians said that John uttered a falsehood when he said that God was the Word, because they could not comprehend the mystery of the Word.

The Monarchians, as also the Praxeans and Victorians, said that the Almighty Father was Jesus Christ, and that he had placed himself at his own right hand.

The Sabellians made the person and the names of Christ and of the Father one, and are called Patripassians, for they believed that the Father had suffered. See, this is how those fare who undertake to search out things that cannot be comprehended, and who want to soar higher than the Scriptures teach.

Again, Erasmus Roterod says, The Word was God. It was Almighty, out of the Almighty, with the Father, not brought forth for a time, but for all time; so proceeding from the paternal heart, and never leaving it. He says further that the Father has begotten to himself the Son, like himself in every respect, from eternity to eternity. Again, he says in suo ecclesiaste, Christ is the word of God, Almighty, which without beginning and without end ever comes forth from the heart of the Father. [Note 1]

Martin Luther says, The word is that which God speaks in himself, and which remains in him and is never separated from him. We do not dispute the testimony of Erasmus and of Luther; but we have cited them so that it may be observed what diversity of opinion exists.

Philip Mel. says, The word is begotten in thought, and is called the image of God, for that which is thought is the image of the thing thought of. Tell me, beloved reader, who dares build his conscience on such a foundation and such reasoning? [Note 2]

Again, some councils resolved that there were three persons in the Trinity, that is, three real substances, and that these same were Homusii, that is, of the same nature (co-essential); both of these, namely the persons and their natures, have been held in suspicion.

See, this is how they follow their own opinions and inclinations, build upon vapor and wind, look at each other and not at the word of the Lord, confuse the simple minds who are not versed in the Scriptures, and proclaim their opinions and not the word; and whoever cannot agree with them and follow them is called a deceiver and heretic by them. Therefore I pray you, for Jesus’ sake, not to climb higher in this ineffable Majesty than you have steps, and not to search further than the word of the Lord has taught, since many a piercing eye has been dazzled, and is still dazzled daily, by this flattery. For you can understand as little of the unspeakable beauty and conception, how and in what manner it came about from eternity, as you can form an idea of the indescribable Father himself.

Therefore do not let the opinion and flattery of the learned be the foundation on which you build your faith; but let the plain word of God, which does not deceive, and the testimony of holy John be a sure foundation on which to build your faith.

He says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” “All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made,” John 1, verses 1 and 3.

This same Word, which was from the beginning and which in the course of time became flesh, is called by Paul the Son, Christ Jesus, and the first-begotten of all creatures, Colossians 1, verse 15.

Indeed, dear reader, if the learned had left unbroken the testimony which John spoke of his eternal divinity, and if they had bowed their intellects to the word of God, there would never have been such dark confusion in the world concerning Christ, the Son of God.

Therefore I advise you in faithful love: take heed and beware; for the testimony of John is too clear to be obscured by flattery, and too strong to be broken by philosophy. Whoever would rather drink the precious, clear wine of divine truth than the impure waters of human flattery, let him hold to the word of the Lord, and let him abandon the unscriptural, destructive explanations, garblings, opinions and ideas of the learned.

This is enough of the eternal and ineffable divinity of Christ. Now, by the grace of God, we will proceed and maintain by the power of the Scriptures that those err abominably who say, The word has not become flesh, but it has taken to itself our flesh, or a man of our flesh, as will be shown briefly and clearly in what follows.

In the first place John A’Lasco writes and says, “Divine justice requires that what we broke through our flesh, included in Adam’s loins, should be punished in the same flesh. Or, as some say, that the nature which committed sin should be punished for that sin, and that what incurred death should also destroy it.”

Answer. Since he and his followers would uphold their cause with the justice of God, and claim that the one who committed and began it should suffer the punishment, then by right they should not use the words “our flesh and nature” in their writings, but “Adam and Eve” (for they were the first who committed and began it), and not the flesh and nature of their descendants, as may be openly seen, Genesis 3, verse 6.

The nature of man was first created pure and good, but it was corrupted through Adam’s disobedience. And as he was thus corrupted in his nature, so all his children were born corrupted; nevertheless, the children were not the ones who committed and began it, but Adam and Eve were. If the justice of God, then, requires the punishment of the one who committed and began it, it would be only right, according to justice, that none of the children should be punished, for they were not the first who disobeyed; but Adam and Eve should receive the punishment, for they were the first who transgressed.

Oh no, Adam and all his seed could not be justified, because of the weakness of his flesh. They were guilty beyond measure, and did not have a penny with which to pay; but the debt was paid for Christ’s sake, who out of his eternal love and mercy (since Adam and his descendants could not be justified in themselves), appearing in the shape and form of sinful man, fulfilled the justice of the Father, tore to pieces the handwriting of the law, and has blotted out and paid for, by the sacrifice of his precious blood, all that Adam had committed and broken by his transgression, Romans 8, verse 3; Ephesians 2, verse 15.

Since they point to the justice of God, I think it necessary to treat of this a little further, so that the intelligent reader may learn that this assertion of theirs is quite powerless, indeed, in every respect without foundation in the Scripture.

It is manifest, kind reader, that Adam and Eve, together with their descendants, tempted by the serpent, fell into condemnation and death by the justice of God, Genesis 3, verse 6, and that nothing can be born of them but what is condemned and guilty of death, Romans 5, verse 12; First Corinthians, chapter 15.

Adam and all his seed, on account of his disobedience, became condemned and guilty of death by the eternal justice of God. If, then, the Lord Christ according to his holy humanity were a natural fruit of the flesh of Adam, as they claim, then the man Christ must again be condemned and guilty of death on account of his human birth. This is too clear to be denied; or else our opponents must take back their own argument and acknowledge that God’s justice is not eternal.

Oh no, the flesh of Christ is holy, pure and spotless; it knows no sin, makes men godly and saves; it is a true bread of souls, as is the word, which in the latter days, according to the intention and purpose of the Father, became a true man, capable of suffering, for the salvation and eternal deliverance of all, and who died an innocent death for us. [Note 3]

It is of no use at all for them to say that Mary was blessed, and that her fruit was kept from sin by the power of God. We confess that Mary was blessed, and that the fruit was without sin; but we deny that Mary was without sin in consequence of the blessing; for Paul says, “The Scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe,” Galatians 3, verse 22.

Again, if the man Christ were a flesh of Mary’s flesh, then Mary would have been blessed through her own flesh, and Adam would have been reconciled through his own flesh; the justice of God would have been broken, and our condemnation, curse and death would have been dissolved and paid for through flesh that was condemned, cursed and guilty of death.

Oh no, the Scripture teaches plainly that we have all become sinners in Adam, and that through sin we have all fallen under the judgment, wrath and condemnation of God, and become subject to death, Romans 5, verse 6; First Corinthians 15, verse 22. And of Christ it testifies that he is the Lamb without spot, that he has not known sin, and that no guile is found in his mouth. Since it is manifest, then, that the Scripture entirely concludes Adam and his descendants under sin and entirely absolves Christ, the discreet and right-minded reader may conclude from this that the holy man Christ Jesus is not of the unclean flesh of Adam, but that he is the holy and pure word of God, John, chapter 1; and that this saying of the learned, that the justice of God requires, and so on, is not the sure testimony and word of God, but merely human flattery and fiction.

Oh, I wish that our opponents would for once ponder what the justice of God requires in this respect according to the Scripture. I trust they would from now on not hold so strongly to their foundation as they have done until now; nor would they say that anyone who does not accept their doctrine sins against the Holy Spirit; or at least they would think that they might be mistaken.

In the second place he suggests that we should understand the conception of Mary, of which Matthew and Luke speak, as far as the mother is concerned, as is naturally due to her according to the ordinance of God, Genesis, chapter 1.

Answer. It surprises me that a man as learned as he is reasons so indiscreetly, and dares to ascribe the conception of Mary to nature, when it is clearly shown all through the Scriptures that the conception of Mary was brought about by supernatural causes, a particular miracle of the Most High and a glorious sign of the Lord our God; as Isaiah says, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel,” Isaiah 7, verse 14; Matthew 1, verse 23; Luke 1, verse 31.

Again, Matthew writes thus concerning the conception of Mary: “When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privately. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take to you Mary your wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus; for he shall save his people from their sins,” Matthew 1, verses 18 to 21.

Again, the angel said to Mary, “You shall conceive in your womb and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give to him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, 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, verses 31 to 35.

From all these it is very evident that the conception of Mary was supernatural, and a sign and miracle of the Lord; therefore it is all to no purpose that the learned philosophize about it as being caused by nature, for that has nothing to do with the matter.

And even if the conception of Mary were ascribed in part to nature, in the face of these clear Scriptures, it is still apparent from the ordinance of God and of nature that the material or origin of the child is of the father and not of the mother, as has been sufficiently explained above in the confession, and also in my writing against Gellius Faber. Therefore these novelties are nothing but philosophy and human genius without Scripture, and not worthy of an answer; but I have briefly examined them, and I pray you not to despise my references, but to examine before you accuse, lest you be mistaken, as Sirach says.

They further bring forward that the Scripture speaks of the Savior as promised of the seed of the woman, of Abraham, and as the fruit of the loins of David.

Answer. In the first place I say that he who concludes from these Scriptures that the man Christ was flesh of a woman, indeed, the natural seed of Abraham and David, who all descended from the unclean flesh of Adam, must also add the unrighteousness, curse and sin of Adam.

If they should assert that he was free from the unrighteousness, curse and sin of Adam, I answer again that then he was not of the natural seed of Adam; for the seed of Adam was unclean, sinful and accursed, and therefore nothing but unclean, sinful and accursed flesh could be begotten from it; or else the unclean must beget the clean, the sinful the holy, and the accursed the blessed, and so the hereditary uncleanness, curse and condemnation would be changed. This is too plain to be disputed.

Indeed, reader, if the incarnation of the Lord was as our opponents say it was, then it would be manifest that Christ Jesus was not so pure in his incarnation as Adam was in the first creation. For if it is asserted, as is true, that Christ was conceived in the virgin Mary, then Adam had no other father on earth but God, which is why Luke also calls him a Son of God. Yet Adam would nevertheless have been created of a purer nature, and of God; but Christ, if he was of the unclean seed of Adam, must be of a less clean nature, that is, of an unclean, human and earthly seed. This is too clear to be disputed.

In the second place I say, if the man Christ were a natural fruit and seed of the impure, sinful flesh of Adam, then he would also be guilty of judgment and death through the eternal justice of God. And if he was guilty, how could he redeem and pay off our guilt? Or else we must admit that God’s justice had come to an end, and that the sinful had taken away and atoned for the sinful, the condemned for condemnation, and that he who was guilty of death had taken away death.

Oh no. No unclean animal was permitted to be offered as an offering of reconciliation in Israel; it had to be without blemish. And if the figure had to be entirely clean and without blemish, how much more should the true offering be, by which the eternal reconciliation is brought about, and by which all the figurative offerings are fulfilled and finished, Hebrews 9, verse 10; Exodus 12, verse 5; Deuteronomy 15, verse 21; Malachi 1, verse 8.

In the third place I would say, he who asserts that the man Christ is a natural fruit and seed of Adam, Abraham, David and of the woman also asserts by this that there are two persons in Christ, two sons; that the father is no true father, the mother no true mother, and the son no true son, as has been said before.

In the fourth place I say, if the man Christ was of the flesh and blood of Mary, then it is manifest that he was not God’s Son, but a created creature, since he would not be begotten of the Father, but of the flesh and blood of Mary according to nature, as has been sufficiently shown.

In the fifth place I say, if the man Christ were of the flesh and blood of Mary, as they claim, then it is very evident that the birth of man according to the ordinance of God cannot be without father and mother, and also that a child does not proceed from the mother but from the father. And if the man Christ came without a father from the body of the mother, against the ordinance of God, then a new creation must have taken place in Mary, and that creation could not have occurred without the Word. If such a creation did occur, then it is manifest that the one half or part of Christ must have been created by the other, Mary’s son by God’s Son, and that the two, namely the Creator and the creature, so became one person and Son. Dear reader, observe what abominations they bring forward.

In the sixth place I say, as all men have both father and mother, and as each has his descent from the father and the mother, so also Christ Jesus had both father and mother. His Father was an incomprehensible Spirit from eternity, and will remain so to eternity; therefore he could have no genealogy on the side of the Father. But the mother, who was the true daughter of Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, conceived him in her virgin womb through the Holy Spirit, by his Father’s word, and she bore a true man in due time. Her genealogy was counted in the Scripture; for when he became incarnate in a human being, he must have a genealogy from which he was born. And this is the word which Paul speaks, Born of the seed of David according to the flesh, Genesis 22, verse 18; Psalm 132, verse 11; Romans 1, verse 3; Romans 9, verse 5; Acts 13, verse 23. Not that there were two sons in Christ, the one without a father and the other without a mother, one the Son of God and the other the son of man, as our opponents claim. But he who was God’s Son was also the son of man, and he who was the son of man was also the Son of God. Not two, but one only and undivided Son, as the ordinance of God and the whole Scriptures teach and imply.

If you cannot understand this, then mark this parable. Charles the Fifth is a son of Austria; he is also a son of Spain; not that he is therefore one of two sons, but he is one only and undivided son. On the side of the father he is a son of Austria, and on the side of the mother he is a son of Spain. So also Christ Jesus is a Son of God and a son of man: the Son of God on the side of his Father, and the son of man on the side of his mother. Not one of two sons, but one only and undivided Son, the Son of God and of Mary, as has been shown.

Again, if you are still in doubt about the fruit of the loins of David, I would first refer you to my “Confession,” which I wrote to John A’Lasco and his preachers in the year 1543, and admonish you to observe how the throne and the kingdom of David were promised to Christ by Isaiah and the angel Gabriel; which, however, was not literally fulfilled in Christ, but in Solomon, who was a figure and symbol of Christ, as were also Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Joshua and Joseph.

Since the whole Scriptures teach us that his kingdom and throne are not literal but spiritual, we must judge in the same manner of the fruit and the king who shall sit upon the throne and reign; or else the one word must be understood literally and the other spiritually. This is too plain to be disputed.

Secondly, observe what Christ asked the Pharisees concerning Christ the Son of David, and how he answered them, Matthew 22, verse 42.

Thirdly, observe that if the man Christ were a natural fruit of the loins of David, all the gross inconsistencies that cannot be resolved would be included in him, which we have partly pointed out above and will enlarge upon if God permits.

Fourthly, observe that all the properties of God are equally perfect in him, and therefore his perfect, eternal love and justice require it, as Christ says, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” Indeed, says John, in this God’s love appeared, that he sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. For as by his eternal justice he sentenced Adam and all his seed to death on account of his disobedience, so also by his eternal love he has promised life, on account of the obedience of Christ, to all who believe in him. For as his righteous punishment of the sins of Adam’s descendants who reject Christ lasts forever, so also his fatherly love to forgive sin through Christ lasts forever toward all those who believe in Christ, and accept and obey the word of his grace, John 3, verse 16.

In the third place, I find it said that my foundation is that Christ was begotten of the Holy Spirit.

Answer. It is very unreasonable that I am always blamed for things of which I am not guilty. In my first “Confession” I have plainly and clearly shown in Latin letters that I do not believe that Christ was conceived in Mary of the Holy Spirit, but through the Holy Spirit. Yet I must hear that I teach that Christ was begotten of the Holy Spirit.

O dear Lord, how lamentably I am slandered! What else do they do against me than the scribes did to Jeremiah, when they took counsel about him and said, Come, and let us devise devices against him, and let us not regard his reasoning, Jeremiah 18, verse 18. Indeed, I think that I am born to turn my ear to the slanderer and my back to the scourger. Nevertheless I hope, by the grace of the Lord, that the time will come when some of them will yet awaken and acknowledge in all humility, with penitent hearts, that they have not despised me, but the word of God, and that they have scorned his Spirit.

In the fourth place he suggests “that I teach that the Word changes itself into human flesh and blood in the womb of the virgin.”

Answer. I presume that it will never be proven by the truth that I have ever, anywhere, said or written so; nevertheless they dare to say and write so of us. I have spoken of it as the high apostle has taught me, that the “Word became flesh.” That testimony I leave unbroken; and I leave it to the Incomprehensible One, who through his almighty power so arranged it for the salvation of us all, how much was changed and what was changed. Yet in my simplicity I would add (if they explain the testimony of John, to which I referred in unchanged letters, and conclude from it: Menno teaches with John that the “Word became flesh,” therefore his foundation must be that it was changed into flesh, and so on) that they should know that change does not always take away the first nature of the substances from which something is made.

Adam was a man created of the earth; he was a man of the earth, and remained of earth, as the Lord said, “Dust you are, and to dust you shall return,” Genesis 3, verse 19.

Again, in the resurrection of the dead, all those who have returned to the earth shall through the power of God be raised from the earth. It is manifest that at first we were earth; afterward we became flesh from the earth; again we became earth from the flesh; and lastly we become flesh from the earth, out of the first flesh, but in glory and brightness, as the Scriptures testify. And so the first substance from which the changed thing was made remains, although changed, as has been heard.

Reader, understand me rightly. I do not present this parable to assert that the Word was changed into flesh and blood in the same way as the earth of which Adam was made was changed into human flesh; but I have presented it to show the reader that even if the Word was changed in being incarnated, it still remained the word, John 1, verse 14; John 8, verse 23; First John 1, verse 2; Revelation 19, verse 13.

In the fifth place he writes, “The Lord Christ was a Spirit from the beginning, unchangeable, holy and eternal. If he, then, was Spirit and unchangeable, how then has he changed his substance or his being and become flesh?”

Answer. If I understand him rightly, in Letter E, page five, he says that he has not yet rightly comprehended my meaning of the phrase “factum est,” that is, become. If he has not yet rightly comprehended me, then I cannot see why he should blame me for such a doctrine, unless he cannot understand the testimony of John in any other way, despite his flattery and corruption; for I have merely testified to the same thing, word for word and unchanged.

Since they blame me, by word of mouth and in writing, for believing in such a change on the basis of the testimony of John (although they never heard such a doctrine from my lips nor read it in my writings), I pray the reader, for Christ’s sake, not to blame me for anything concerning the change of the eternal Word beyond what I hereby confess and explain in plain words. I believe and confess that there is an Almighty, eternal and incomprehensible God, Father, Word and Holy Spirit, who has lived in eternal glory and shall live so forever. And that this same Almighty, eternal Father, before all creatures, indeed, from the beginning and from eternity, begets of himself this his Almighty, eternal Word, in a divine and therefore incomprehensible manner; and that this his Almighty, eternal Spirit proceeds or flows from him through the Word or Son; but I do not comprehend it.

In the same manner I also believe and confess that this Almighty, eternal Father, through his Almighty, eternal Word, which is the Son, has created heaven and earth with their fullness in the power of his Almighty, eternal Spirit, and that by it he forever preserves and maintains all things created in it and by it; but I do not comprehend it.

I further believe and confess that all human nature (at the sound of the last trumpet) shall through the power of the Almighty and everlasting God rise again from the earth with a glorified body; and that the children of God, who here on earth have walked before him in a firm faith and in meekness, shall receive from the hands of the Lord the glorious, promised kingdom of honor; and that, on the other hand, those who have rejected the Lord and his word shall be tormented forever with unquenchable, everlasting fire, with the devil and his angels, under the fearful, unbearable judgment of the Almighty and great God; but I do not comprehend it.

Faithful reader, observe that although I do not comprehend the Almighty, only and eternal God in his eternal, divine being, in the dominion of his glory, in the creation and preservation of his creatures, in the reward of both the good and the evil, and in many of his works, yet I do truly believe it, and for this reason: because the Scripture teaches so. In the same way I cannot comprehend how, or in what manner, the incomprehensible, eternal Word became flesh or man in Mary; nevertheless I do truly believe that he became man, because the Scripture teaches so. I know that it is a work that was done by the Lord, and is a miracle before our eyes. Indeed, it is such a work that intellect cannot fathom it nor sharpness comprehend it. Truly it is said, Who shall tell of his birth?

I clearly find that it is an exalted and incomprehensible miracle of the Almighty and great God, which the Almighty, eternal Father has worked in Mary through the omnipotence of the power of the Holy Spirit; and I know how very perilous and troubling it is for anyone to search into the incomprehensible depth and divine mystery with his foolish, earthly understanding, and to garble the plain testimonies of the Holy Spirit by deceit and human cleverness. Therefore I dare not believe or teach more or less about the holy incarnation than the holy prophets of the Lord, Christ Jesus, and also John, Peter and Paul teach me on every hand in the Scriptures with such clear testimonies that cannot be disputed; all of whom are surer and wiser witnesses to me than all the learned who have been, are, or ever shall be on earth; although, I repeat, I cannot comprehend the ineffable mystery with my dull, earthly understanding. Sirach says, Do not inquire into the things which you cannot bear; and do not search out what is too great or too exalted for you.

Again, as to the saying of Malachi, “For I am the Lord, I do not change,” Malachi 3, verse 6, and the question of John A’Lasco, “If he is eternal, how could he die?”

Answer. Malachi does not speak here of God’s substance or being, but of his intention, counsel, resolution and will. Accordingly I confess that God’s intention, counsel, will, purpose, promise and love are eternal and unchangeable, and must come to pass as he wills and has resolved in his wisdom.

It is manifest that the Almighty, eternal and unchangeable Father rules and does all things according to his eternal, unchangeable intention, counsel, will and purpose; and that through his eternal, unchangeable love he had provided his eternal holy Word, or Son, so that according to his firm and unchangeable intention he should become the Paschal lamb, as Peter says. Therefore this had to happen, that the Word in due time became flesh, although we cannot comprehend it; for it was the gracious intention, counsel, resolution, providence and will of his Almighty and everlasting Word, which will stand firm forever, and which according to the prophetic word can never be changed, as has been heard.

See, honorable reader, this is my reply to the three questions: If he is a Spirit, how could he become flesh? If he is God, how could he change? And if he is eternal, how could he die? This is what I believe and confess before my God, and I trust by the grace of God to remain firmly in it until death.

I have not taken counsel with nature and my intellect in this respect, but with the word of the Lord, which is the true light to my feet, and which shows me in plain words that the conqueror, the promised seed of the woman, from the loins of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and David, born according to the flesh, who is the Blessing, Messiah, Christ, King and Savior of all the world, is not of unclean, sinful flesh, but of the pure seed of his heavenly Father: the word of God, conceived of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary, and become flesh in her, as John says. Christ himself also says that he is from above, that he is the bread from heaven, and that he went forth from the Father, John, chapter 16. And Paul says that he is the Lord of heaven, descended from above; that he is the Alpha and Omega, our Immanuel, First Corinthians, chapter 15; Ephesians 4, verse 10; Revelation 1, verse 8; Isaiah 7, verse 14. Besides, I plainly see that our opponents dare not bring forward these and such plain Scriptures, but garble them by their intellect with many exceptions and flatteries. Therefore I repeat that I turn away from intellect and nature, bind my faith and conscience to the word of the Lord, and truly and firmly believe and trust that this great miracle of God was brought about in Mary in this way, although I cannot comprehend it.

See, kind reader, whoever testifies or writes anything else of me concerning the change of the eternal Word than what I hereby confess is a liar and does not testify to the truth. The testimony to which I refer is firm and binding: “The word has become flesh.” But how far it was changed, he knows who in his eternal love has so arranged it through his omnipotence for the salvation and everlasting deliverance of us all. Praise be to God forever. Amen.

Here I will perhaps be asked, is the Father, then, not of divine nature? And where has Christ derived his humanity from? To this I answer: Where did the abundance of water come from which flowed from the hard rock? The rock was not water, nor any watery substance. Was it not produced by the omnipotence of God, to whom nothing is impossible, above all human understanding and comprehension?

Again, how did a virgin conceive, other than through the power of God and the working of the Holy Spirit, above the comprehension of all philosophers? Indeed, above the comprehension of Mary herself, for she said, “How shall this be, since I do not know a man? And the angel answered and said to her, 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.” He does not say, that holy thing which shall come from your flesh and blood, as our opponents say.

They may further say that if the Word became flesh, and did not take to itself our flesh, then it did not remain God’s Word; just as when Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt she no longer remained a human being or a woman, and when the water became wine it no longer remained water. I would reply: The Scripture says that Lot’s wife became a pillar of salt, and that the water became wine. This the Scripture says, and therefore it is also true. But the Scripture does not say that Lot’s wife took to herself a pillar of salt, or that water took to itself wine. In the same manner the Scriptures testify that the Word became flesh; but they do not testify that the Word took to himself our flesh.