Reply to Martin Micron: Thirty-one Articles and Differences

First. Micron and Herman have clearly and publicly confessed before us all, “That Christ Jesus was so born of the Father, from everlasting, that he was separated from the Father, and seated separate from him, from eternity.” Note that this being seated separate from the Father is without the Scriptures.

We confess, and that according to the Scriptures, that Christ Jesus was from eternity the Father’s wisdom, Proverbs 8, verse 12; his eternal Word, John 1, verse 1, by which all things are created, Genesis 1, verse 1; Psalm 23, verse 6; John 1, verse 3; Ephesians 3, verse 9; Colossians 1, verse 16; Hebrews 1, verse 2; that his goings forth were from the beginning and from the days of eternity, Micah 5, verse 2; that he was before Abraham was born, John 8, verse 58; that he was before John the Baptist, and came after him, John 1, verse 3; the first and last, Revelation 1, verse 8; Revelation 2, verse 8; the firstborn of every creature, Colossians 1, verse 15. But of such a birth, which implies a separate seat from everlasting, as Micron and Herman confessed before us, we do not read in the Scriptures. Consider whether this confession of ours is not in accordance with the Scriptures. [Note 1]

Secondly. The doctrine and belief of our opponents is, “That this separate Son of God, in due time, became a real son, body and soul, of the flesh and blood of Mary.” Note: two Sons, and a divided Christ.

Our doctrine and belief is that this same Word, Wisdom, or Firstborn, as we have confessed, in due time descended from heaven, and that he became a true, mortal man, capable of suffering, by the power of the Most High and his Holy Spirit; not of Mary, but in Mary, above all human comprehension, as John says, “The word is made flesh.” Observe whether this confession of ours is not in accordance with the Scriptures. [Note 2]

Thirdly. Micron and Herman frequently confessed before us all, “That there were two Sons in Christ; the one, the eternal Son of God, the other the temporal son of Mary.” Note, again: two sons, and a divided Christ. We confessed, as said before, that he who was the Word, Wisdom and firstborn from everlasting became the son of man in due time, an only, undivided Son, whose Father was God, from everlasting, and whose mother was Mary, in time, Luke 1, verse 31; Matthew, chapter 1; John 1, verse 49. Observe whether this confession of ours is not according to the Scriptures.

Fourthly. Micron and Herman have frequently and plainly confessed before us all, and do so many times in their narration, that the son of man had no father; sometimes they say no near father, which is the same as no father. See how they blaspheme both the Father and the Son, Christ.

We confess with the angel Gabriel, Luke 1, verse 28; with the heavenly Father, Matthew 4, verse 17; Matthew 17, verse 5; Mark 1, verse 11; Mark 9, verse 7; Luke 3, verse 22; Luke 9, verse 20; with Christ himself, John 3, verse 16; John 5, verse 22; John 6, verse 69; John 7, verse 28; John 8, verse 23; with all the apostles, Matthew 14, verse 33; with Peter, Matthew 16, verse 16; with John the Baptist; with Nathaniel, John 1, verse 49; with Martha, John 11, verse 27; and with all the Scriptures, that God is his Father, John 1, verse 14; John 9, verse 38. Observe whether this confession is not right according to the Scriptures. [Note 3]

Fifthly. Micron and Herman have frequently confessed before us all, and still do so in their narration, “That the crucified Jesus, who died for us, was not the Son of God and is one with the other.” Observe whether this is not denying the Lord who has bought them, as Peter says. We confess according to the Scriptures that the crucified Christ Jesus is God’s first and only begotten, own true Son, whom he did not spare, for our sake, Romans 8, verse 32, but sent to be the propitiation for our sins, by his fatherly, divine love, First John 4, verse 10; by whose blood we are cleansed and bought, First Corinthians 6, verse 20; First Corinthians 7, verse 23; who also, in his last extremity, confessed God the Father to be his Father, crying, “Father, into your hands I commend my Spirit,” Luke 23, verse 46. See whether our confession is not right according to the Scriptures.

Sixthly. Micron makes use of a parable: that as body and soul are one undivided man, so the Son of God and the son of Mary are one undivided person. Note, in the third place: two Sons, and a divided Christ.

We call one what the Holy Scriptures and all the world call one; and what they call two is two. If there are two sons in Christ, begotten at different times, the one from eternity, the other in due time; of different persons, namely, of God and of Mary; in different forms, the one invisible and incapable of suffering, and the other visible and capable of suffering, as is the doctrine of our opponents, then there must also be two persons in him; or else the Word was no real Son of God, or the son of Mary no real son of man, or else the one must be taken away by the other and absorbed by it. Of this we cannot, by the grace of God, be convinced by human reasoning without the Scriptures.

Nor is such a parable of body and soul, in regard to this matter, known to the Scriptures; nor such a Savior and Christ, who was changed from one Son into two sons, from one person into two persons, from earthly into heavenly, from holy into sinful, from good into evil, from pure into impure, from blessed into cursed, and who was changed from man into Jesus Christ.

Seventhly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That as the man Christ was born of Mary, he was therefore also of her flesh and seed”; and they refer to Matthew 1, verse 16. Note, in the fourth place: two Sons, and a divided Christ.

We say Obed was also born of Ruth, and Solomon of Bathsheba; nevertheless Boaz and David were their fathers, who begot Obed of Ruth and Solomon of Bathsheba. So also the man Christ was born of Mary; yet God, the heavenly Father, was his Father, Matthew 1, verse 20; Genesis 17, verse 6; Genesis 19, verse 32; Genesis 35, verse 11; Wisdom of Solomon 7, verse 2; Romans 9, verse 5; Hebrews 11, verse 11. Observe whether I do not rightly teach you according to the Scriptures.

* * * *

Ninthly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That the man Christ is of the natural seed of David,” because the Scriptures say, “Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne,” Psalm 132, verse 11; Psalm 89, verse 4. Note, in the fifth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say, according to the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, that he is David’s supernatural, promised and given son. For if he were David’s natural son, as our opponents have it, then he must have been of Joseph’s natural seed (for the evangelists count the line to Joseph), and the Word did not become flesh. Observe whether we do not teach according to the Scriptures.

Tenthly. Again, the foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That the man Christ was of David’s seed,” and they refer to Romans 1, verse 3; Romans 9, verse 5. Note, in the sixth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is that he who was God’s almighty, eternal Word from eternity became man in due time, according to the promise, by his almighty power, in the virgin Mary, who was betrothed to a man of the house of David called Joseph, to which Joseph the evangelists count the line, Matthew 1, verse 16; Luke 3, verse 23; Matthew 1, verse 18; John 1, verse 14. And so in due time he was born according to the flesh of the same house in which he was made flesh, as the Lord had promised to David. And thus Christ is born of the seed of David, that is, of the house of David; but he did not become flesh of the seed of David, as our opponents claim by garbling this Scripture. Observe whether we do not teach rightly according to the Scriptures.

Eleventhly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That the man Christ is flesh of our flesh, and bone of our bone, and that our flesh is seated at the right hand of the Father.” He advocates this in his book on “The Doctrine of the Church of God.” Note, in the seventh place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is that the regenerated church of Christ is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, as Adam testifies of his Eve that she was flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, Genesis 2, verse 23; but Eve did not say this of Adam. So Christ also testifies of his church, which he has begotten by the power of his holy word, in the sprinkling of his most holy blood, through faith, that she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; but the church cannot so testify of Christ, Ephesians 5, verse 30. See whether we do not rightly teach you according to the Scriptures. [Note 8]

Twelfthly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That the man Christ and we are of one Adam, and are thus brothers by virtue of the flesh.” The foundation of this assertion is that Paul says, “He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all of one,” that is, of “one Adam,” they say. Note, in the eighth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is that Christ and his regenerated church are of one God, John 1, verse 12, that is, those who hear and obey his word, Mark 3, verse 35; Luke 8, verse 21; and therefore he calls them his brothers, and says, “I will declare your name to my brothers.” For as he is God’s firstborn Son, Hebrews 1, verse 6, so he is also the firstborn of the brothers, Romans 8, verse 9. If he were our brother in Adam, as is the doctrine of our opponents, then he must also have been Adam’s firstborn son, as he is the firstborn of the brothers, as was heard. Then also all the ungodly of the whole world, who have the devil as their father, John 8, verse 44, must be Christ’s brothers and sisters, as well as the regenerated, who have God as their Father. See whether we do not teach you rightly according to the Scriptures. [Note 4]

Thirteenthly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That Christ has partaken of the flesh and blood of his children; which cannot be explained or understood otherwise than that he has received his flesh and blood from the children.” Note, in the ninth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that by this they deny the word of the Lord and the order of creation. For the Scriptures say only that he partook of flesh and blood. If they should say that the children are spiritual children (as is indeed the case, because Christ had no fleshly children), and if the brothers should still be fleshly brothers, then, first, they break the Scripture by explaining the one word, which is so closely joined to the other, in a spiritual sense, and the other in a fleshly sense. And secondly, they assert an inconsistency. Consider whether they teach according to the Scriptures.

Fourteenthly. Micron frequently writes that Christ has taken to himself the seed of Abraham, and refers to Hebrews 2, verse 16. Note, in the tenth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say, and that truthfully, that Micron lamentably adulterates the text; for Paul does not say “has taken,” but he says “takes to himself” the seed of Abraham, that is, the children and descendants of Abraham. See how he deals with the Scriptures.

* * * *

Eighteenthly. Micron confessed before us all, “That although Mary was of the impure, sinful flesh of Adam, she was nevertheless pure and holy, because the angel said to her, ‘Blessed are you among women,’” Luke 1, verse 28. See whether such doctrine can stand the test of the Scriptures.

We confess, and that according to the Scriptures, that since Mary was of the sinful seed of Adam, as we are, she was therefore concluded under sin, the same as we; for the Scriptures except none of Adam’s seed, Romans 5, verse 12; First Corinthians 15, verse 21; Galatians 3, verse 22; Ephesians 2, verse 3. For if she had been pure on account of such a word, as Micron says, “then God might have cleansed the whole world by such a word, and it would have been in vain to send his beloved Son into this wicked world in such a humble form.” Oh no. It required another, who must pay the debt, fulfill the law and be the pleasing sin offering for Mary no less than for us, if we were to be saved. Observe and see whether we do not rightly teach you in accordance with the Scriptures.

* * * *

Twentieth. Now Micron writes, “That we should free from sin whatever the Scripture frees from it; and that man should not call common or unholy what God testifies to be holy,” and refers to Acts 10, verse 15.

We confess and say, and that in accordance with the Lord’s word, that the Scripture frees no one from sin except him who is free indeed, namely, Christ Jesus, Isaiah 53, verse 12; Second Corinthians 2, verse 15; First Peter 2, verse 22; First John 3, verse 5. By this it is plainly shown that he is not of Mary’s flesh, which was also concluded under sin, but that the Father’s most glorious word, which knew no sin, became flesh, John 1, verse 14. For he is holy, and that in truth, and shall ever remain holy. Therefore, in my opinion, it is blasphemy against the most holy flesh of Christ, which is the true food for our souls, the living bread, given in such great love for the reconciliation of the sins of all the world, to compare it in this way to the flesh of irrational animals, which were forbidden as food under the law and were therefore deemed unclean, and which are now again allowed under the gospel as clean and free, as was once heard. See whether we do not teach in accordance with Scripture, John 6, verse 51; Leviticus 11, verse 4; Deuteronomy 14, verse 7; Romans 14, verse 20; Matthew 15, verse 11; Mark 7, verse 15; Acts 10, verse 15; Titus 1, verse 15. [Note 5]

Twenty-first. The doctrine of our opponents is, “That the Son of God has fulfilled the law in our flesh.” Note, in the fourteenth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that it is the doctrine of the Holy Scripture that no one born of the accursed and sinful flesh of Adam could fulfill the law, which was spiritual; for the seed of Adam was too much corrupted, and was also, by the righteous judgment of God, subject to the curse, Deuteronomy 27, verse 26. Since, then, it had become so utterly powerless and weak in Adam, and since the law accused us before God, he in his great love took pity on Adam and all his seed, and did not spare his own Son, but sent him in the form of sinful flesh, Romans 8, verses 3 and 32; who fulfilled the law for us, Matthew 5, verse 17; Ephesians 2, verse 13; who innocently died for us guilty sinners, that through him we might live, First Peter 2, verse 24; and so he became our holy, innocent and spotless High Priest, Mediator, Advocate and Reconciler with God his Father, Hebrews 5, verse 1; Hebrews 6, verse 20; Hebrews 7, verse 26; Hebrews 8, verse 1; Hebrews 9, verse 14; Hebrews 10, verse 12; Hebrews 13, verse 12; First Timothy 2, verse 5; First John 1, verse 2. And so the glory belongs to God our almighty Father, through his blessed Word or Son alone, as the Scriptures teach, and not through the accursed, sinful flesh of Adam, as our opponents teach, Romans 7, verse 14. Observe whether we do not teach you in accordance with the Scriptures.

Twenty-second. The distinct doctrine of our opponents is, “That the man Christ who died for us was not of heaven, but of earth.” Note, in the fifteenth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

Our foundation and doctrine is, according to the Scriptures, that he was of heaven and not of earth, as he himself says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven”; “and the bread that I will give is my flesh,” John 6, verse 51. Again in verse 62: “What if you shall see the son of man (note, he says the son of man, who Micron says was of earth) ascend up where he was before?” Again, “I am from above; you are of this world,” John 8, verse 23. Again, “He who comes from above is above all,” John 3, verse 31. Christ says, “I came forth from the Father, and have come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father,” John 16, verse 28. Paul also says, “The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven,” First Corinthians 15, verse 47; and there are many other similar Scriptures. By the grace of God we will, at the proper time, plainly show what kind of spirits those are who deny these plain Scriptures and point the poor, ignorant people to a divided, earthly, impure and sinful creature and Christ, and also what abominations they commit by their false doctrine. Observe whether we do not rightly teach in accordance with the Scriptures.

Twenty-third. Micron writes: “They testify sufficiently that the name without truth and works is vain; and that none can be saved by the name unless he has, above all, the reality of the being; for the name comes from the truth.” See how he judges himself here.

We say that he is right that the name without the reality avails nothing. And yet he confesses in different parts of his writings that the man Christ (as he calls him) had no father, and still he calls him the Son of God; he calls him of heaven, yet he says that he is of earth; he calls him pure, yet confesses that he is of the impure seed of Adam; and he says other like things. Whether or not Micron proves by this that he uses vain names and does not speak the truth (for according to his doctrine the Son of God is the son of man, and the man Christ the Son of God), I will let him and all intelligent persons judge according to his own word.

Twenty-fourth. Micron writes: “As, then, the same human nature (he means the whole man of Mary’s flesh) in which he suffered was his own flesh and body, and was none other, therefore it cannot be concluded from this that God’s Son did not suffer for us.” See how here the mere name, and not the reality, must avail with him, contrary to his own doctrine.

We say that Micron manages things with his flatteries so that his readers may not be too much alarmed. For in different places he says that Christ, according to his human substance and nature, had no Father, and that he suffered in this same human substance and nature, which had no father; and here he says that this was God’s Son, and that he suffered for us. What kind of flatterer and writer Micron is, and what one should think of his foundation and doctrine, I will let each one judge for himself from his own writings. This is not simple, truthful speaking, as he writes. I do not know what greater shame one could think of.

Twenty-fifth. Micron writes that the Scriptures say, “That the Son of God suffered and died for us. He writes this for two particular reasons. First, to prove the inseparable union of both the divine and human natures in one person, Christ. Secondly, to show that Christ’s suffering in his body and flesh could not serve for man’s salvation otherwise than by such inseparable union of both the divine and human natures in one person, Jesus Christ.” Note, in the seventeenth place: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that Micron sings the same tune about the union of both natures all through his appendix, of which not a single word can be found in all the Scriptures. We ask nothing more than that he show us where the Scripture says, “This is the divine nature in Christ,” or, “That is the human nature in Christ” (although I confess both natures to be in Christ, but not as the doctrine and teaching of our opponents have it); or else that he show us where the Scriptures say, “This is the union of the two natures in one person,” as he generally writes; or that he show us where the perfect Son of God is called only of divine nature, or the perfect man, body and soul, only of human nature, as he would make the reader believe, so that we may reflect on it. If it is not Scripture, it is anathema, Galatians 1, verse 8; and if it is Scripture, let it be shown to us, and we will yield. O God! what abominable deceit they falsely teach the poor, ignorant people under a show of the Scriptures!

I would further say that if it were such an inseparable union, and if that union gave his suffering the power to save, as he says, then it is clear that the divine nature also suffered. For what is inseparable cannot be separated; and in other places he says that the divine nature did not suffer, by which he makes the natures separable. So he contradicts himself, and deceit remains deceit however he garbles the Scriptures with his flatteries. See whether we do not rightly teach you according to the Scriptures.

Twenty-sixth. Micron writes, “Those speak very unintelligently of this great and holy mystery of our salvation who say that Mary’s flesh was crucified for us when the man Christ was born of her; for they do not consider that Christ was not only man, but also God.” Note: two sons and a divided Christ.

We say that Micron makes his glosses worse and worse, so that it must be apparent that he pleads the cause of antichrist. I leave it to the judgment of all the world: if the man Christ (note what he means by saying the man Christ) was of the seed of Mary, born of her, as the wine is of the vine and the blossom and fruit are of the tree, was it not then Mary’s flesh and blood that was crucified for us? Although one could not say, when Absalom hung on the tree, “There hangs David,” as he writes, yet one could truthfully have said, “There hangs David’s flesh and blood.” Neither do we say that Mary was crucified, but that Mary’s flesh and blood (mind you, I say this in Micron’s manner) was crucified; that is, if he was born of the flesh and blood of Mary. Otherwise the whole Scriptures must be wrong, which say that we are the seed, children, flesh and blood of Adam on account of our fleshly birth. See whether we do not rightly teach you in accordance with the Scriptures.

Twenty-seventh. Micron says, “That David confessed Christ to be his Lord according to his divinity, and to be his son according to his humanity,” Psalm 110, verse 1; Matthew 22, verse 42. Note again: two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the prophets call him, without any distinction as to his divinity or humanity, our “Immanuel,” Isaiah 7, verse 14; “The mighty God” and “everlasting Father,” Isaiah 9, verse 6; “The Lord Our Righteousness,” Jeremiah 23, verse 6; Jeremiah 33, verse 16. Paul calls him our Lord, First Corinthians 8, verse 6; First Corinthians 12, verse 3. Thomas called him “my Lord and my God,” John 20, verse 28. Christ says, “All power is given to me in heaven and on earth,” Matthew 28, verse 18. Paul says, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,” Philippians 2, verses 10 and 11; and also that all things are put under his feet, and that the Father gave him to be the head over all things to the church, “and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come,” Ephesians 1, verse 21; and that he is the Lord both of the dead and the living. And whether he is not, then, also David’s Immanuel, the Mighty One, God, Father, Jehovah, Lord, Head and Judge, all those may reflect on in the fear of the Lord who rightly confess the Lord and his word. Consider whether we do not rightly teach you according to the Scriptures.

Twenty-eighth. Micron writes, “If the flesh of Christ were of the substance of the heavenly Father, as Menno dreams, then the heavenly Father must also have flesh and blood; or else Christ could have no flesh and blood, but would only be a Spirit, as God is a Spirit.” See what blind reason, and no faith.

We testify and confess before God and all our readers, and that in accordance with the word of the Lord, that the eternal, ineffable Word is of the eternal, ineffable substance of the Father, and must be, if it is God. For what can be God, with God and in God, which is not of his substance or being? And also that this same Word came down in due time and truly became man in Mary, by the almighty power of God, John 1, verse 14. See, this is what the Holy Scriptures teach, and this is what we believe, though Micron dares to call it “dreaming.”

The holy angel Gabriel and the dear evangelist, together with John the Baptist, Peter and all the apostles, indeed, Christ himself, certainly knew as well as Micron and the learned do that God the Father was a Spirit, and that he was not of flesh and blood. Yet they confessed before all the world that the visible, tangible, eating, drinking, speaking, sleeping, waking, walking, teaching, sighing, weeping, dying and rising Christ Jesus was the invisible, eternal and living Son of God, as may be plainly seen from the general tenor of the whole New Testament. O God, what abominable snares to catch the poor souls and drag them to the pit of destruction!

Twenty-ninth. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, “That the Word was God from the beginning, and could therefore not suffer.” They refer to John 1, verse 1. “It was flesh, and could therefore not become flesh.” Note: it is reason, and not faith.

We say and confess, and that by the strength of the Scriptures, that this same Word, which was in the beginning with God, and was God, in due time became man and dwelt among us, John 1, verse 14. For “God so loved the world,” says Christ himself, “that he gave his only begotten Son.” He did not spare his own Son, says Paul, but delivered him up for us all, Romans 8, verse 32; and John says, “He sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” First John 4, verse 10.

All those who dispute this deny, first, the eternal love of God, who so loved us that he gave his only begotten Son, John 3, verse 16; First John 4, verse 10.

Secondly, they deny the promise of truth by which God promised that the Messiah should be our Immanuel, Isaiah 7, verse 4; our God, Isaiah 40, verse 10; and the Lord Our Righteousness, Jeremiah 23, verse 6; Jeremiah 33, verse 16. [Note 6]

Thirdly, they deny the almighty power of God, by which he can do whatever he will. They make Gabriel a false messenger, since he said that nothing was impossible with God, Luke 1, verse 37.

Fourthly, they stand against all the Scriptures, which testify without any separation that Christ Jesus is the own, only and firstborn Son of God, John 1, verse 14; John 3, verse 16; First John 4, verse 9; Hebrews 1, verse 5; Romans 8, verse 32.

Fifthly, they make the Father a liar; for they do not believe the testimony which he has given of his Son, First John 5, verse 10.

Sixthly, they have neither Father nor Son; for they deny the Son, First John 2, verse 22.

Seventhly, they remain under the wrath of God; for they do not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God, John 3, verse 36.

Eighthly, they attach to Christ all the gross inconsistencies which neither Micron nor any other man can explain away, as may be clearly seen from his writings, if one has spiritual eyes. Consider whether we do not rightly teach you in accordance with the Scriptures. * * *

Thirtieth. Micron and Herman say, “That if the Word became flesh, and did not take on himself the flesh of Mary, there must have been a new creation in Mary.” See how diametrically they oppose the foundation of truth.

We say (note it) that if all the miracles and powers of God, by which many things were changed into different beings or forms from what they were before, were to be called a new creation, then we would find many such new creations in the Scriptures: as when water was changed into wine, John 2, verse 9, or turned into blood, Exodus 7, verse 20; Lot’s wife was changed into a pillar of salt, Genesis 19, verse 26; all the dust of Egypt was changed into lice, Exodus 8, verse 17; and many other miracles. The omnipotence of God was acknowledged by them; yet none of it is called a new creation in the Scriptures.

But we will let the courteous, impartial reader judge according to the Scriptures whether there would not have been a new creation in Christ’s being born of Mary, as there was in the beginning with Eve being made from Adam’s rib, if our opponents’ foundation were true. Consider whether we do not rightly teach in accordance with the Scriptures.

Thirty-first. Micron writes, “That we put in place of the true Christ a new, unknown Christ, whom neither the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, nor the many thousands of martyrs, and so on, ever confessed.”

We say that by this Micron, like all the false prophets, lamentably slanders the pious patriarchs, prophets, apostles and witnesses of Christ, and that he thereby denies their sure, true testimony, left in the Holy Scriptures, concerning Christ Jesus the Son of God. For it is clear that the prophets confessed him to be their Immanuel, and that he was to be the son of a virgin who was to conceive by the Holy Spirit, Isaiah 7, verse 14; for God himself was to be his Father, Luke 1, verses 31 to 35. They confess him to be their mighty God and everlasting Father, Isaiah 9, verse 6; their Jehovah, who would make them and us righteous, Jeremiah 23, verse 6; Jeremiah 33, verse 16; that his goings forth were from everlasting, who was to be Lord and Prince of Israel; that he was the wisdom of God, and was to show himself on earth and dwell among men. David confessed him to be his Lord, Psalm 110, verse 2; he was to be the Lord, strong and mighty, and to be the Lord Sabaoth, Psalm 24, verse 8, which no man of Adam could be. Also all the holy apostles, Matthew 14, verse 33; the angel of God, Luke 1, verse 28; the Father, Matthew 3, verse 17; Matthew 17, verse 16; Mark 1, verse 11; Mark 9, verse 7; Luke 3, verse 22; Luke 9, verse 35; and Christ himself, John 9, verse 35; John the Baptist, John 1, verse 34; John 3, verse 28; Nathaniel, John 1, verse 49; and Martha, John 11, verse 27, confessed him to be the true Son of the true and living God, indeed, his only, firstborn, inseparable Son, all through the New Testament. I say inseparable; for Peter plainly confessed that the son of man was God’s Son, and that the Son of God was the son of man; and on this confession Christ also promised him salvation, said that the church would be built upon it, and said that flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but the Father who is in heaven, Matthew 16, verse 17. [Note 7]

And now these thoughtless people come and divide Christ without Scripture for it. He must not be the Son of God on account of the flesh, but is only called so for the sake of their garbled union. They rob us of both Father and Son; they make false and untrue all the Scriptures, together with all the apostles and prophets, indeed, also the Father and the Son; and they take the innocent apostles, patriarchs and prophets, with whom we agree in all particulars, as a mere cover for their falsehood. They point us away from the firm foundation of truth to the quicksands of hair-splitting, garbled Scriptures and glosses, and build their church on a man and creature of the impure, sinful seed and flesh of Adam, without a father. And although they, poor children, are quite earthly and fleshly, as may be seen from their writings and works, yet they boast that they rightly teach Christ; which none can do except by the revelation of the Father through the Holy Spirit, as Christ himself says, “No man knows the Son but the Father; neither does any man know the Father except the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him,” Matthew 11, verse 27.

Observe whether we teach a Christ to whom the prophets and apostles have not pointed us, as these unfaithful people falsely accuse us before all the world.

Oh, that they meant God! that they sought the glory of God and the salvation of their neighbors, and not their own vain honor and glory! How gladly would they confess that we had the pure, saving truth, and they the impure, accursed falsehood. But as it is, it is hidden from them by their earthly, fleshly vision.

See, honorable reader, here you have the principal differences between us and our opponents concerning this article distinctly presented to view. And I will now faithfully show you, for further explanation, their unscriptural confessions, their garblings and adulterations of the Scriptures, together with the principal glosses they use without the Scriptures, or with a false and garbled understanding of them, by which they quite obscure the brightness of Jesus Christ the Son of God, break the foundation of truth, ensnare the simple reader, deprive him of the Father and Son, and so hold him in the curse, sin and death, as has been heard.