THIRTY‑ONE ARTICLES AHD DIFFERENCES, PRESENTED TO THE READER,

TO SHOP THAT MICRON SAYS THIS, WITHOUT THE SCRIPT­

URES, AND WE THAT, ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE.

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," Mark 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, Prov. 8:12. His eternal Word, Jn. 1:1, by which all things are created, Gen. 1:1; Ps. 23:6; Jn. 1:3; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2; that his goings forth were from the beginning and from the days of eternity, Micah 5:2; that he was before Abraham was born, Jn. 8:58; that he was before John the Baptist, and came after him, John 1:3; the first and last, Rev. 1:8; 2:8; the firstborn of every creature, Col. 1:15. 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 our confession is not in accordance with the Scriptures.

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." Mark, 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, passive, mortal man, 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 if this our confession is not in accord­ance with the Scriptures.

Thirdly. Micron and Herman frequently 371confessed before us all, "That there were two Sons in Christ; the one, the eternal Son of God, the other the temporal son of Mary." Mark, again, two sons, and a di­vided Christ. We confessed, as said before, that he who was the Word, Wisdom and first‑born 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 tempo­rally, Luke 1:31; Matt. 1; Jn. 1:49. Ob­serve if this our confession is not according to the Scriptures.

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

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

Fifthly. Micron and Herman have fre­quently confessed before us all, and yet 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 if this is not forsaking the Lord who has purchased 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 has not spared, for our sake, Rom. 8:3;2; but sent him to be the propitiation for our sins, by his paternal, divine love, 1 Jn. 4:10, by whose blood we are cleansed and bought, 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; who also, in the last ex­tremity confessed God the Father to be his Father, crying, "Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit," Luke 23:46. Mark, whether our confession is not right accord­ing to the Scriptures.

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

We call one what the Holy Scriptures, and all the world call one, that which is one; and that which they call two, are two. If there are two sons in Christ which gener­ated 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 impas­sive, and the other visible and passive, 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 thereby. Of this, we can not, 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 refer to Matt. 1:16. Mark, fourthly, two Sons, and a divided Christ.

We say, Obed is also born of Ruth and Solomon of Bathsheba; nevertheless Boaz and David were their fathers, who begat Obed of Ruth, and Solomon of Bathsheba, thus, also, the man Christ was born of Mary; yet, God the heavenly Father, was his Father, Matt. 1:20; Gen. 17:6; 19:32; 35:11; Wis. 7:2; Rom. 9:6; Heb. 11:11. 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 thy body will I set upon thy throne," Ps. 132:11; 37289:4. Mark, fifthly, 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 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 refer to Rom. 1:3; 9:5."Mark, sixthly, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures are, that the same who was God's Almighty, eternal Word, from eternity, in due time, according to the promise, became man by his Almighty power, in the virgin Mary, who was prom­ised to a man of the generation of David, called Joseph, to which Joseph, the evan­gelists count, Matt. 1:16; Luke 3:23; Matt. 1:18; Jn. 1:14, and was thus, in due time, born according to the flesh of the same gen­eration of which he was incarnated, as the Lord had promised unto David. And thus Christ is born of the seed of David, that is, of the generation of David; but 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." This he advocates in his book on "The Doctrine of the Church of God." Mark, seventhly, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures are, 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, Gen. 2:23, but Eve was not thus of Adam. Thus Christ also testi­fies of his church which he has begotten by virtue of his holy word in the sprinkling of his most holy blood, by faith, that she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone; but the church can not thus testify of Christ, Eph. 6:30. See if we do not rightly teach you according to the Scriptures.

Twelfthly. The foundation and doctrine of our opponents is, "That the man Christ, and we, are of one Adam, and are thus brethren by virtue of the flesh." The foun­dation of this assertion is that Paul says, "He that sanctifieth and they who are sanc­tified, are all of one," that is, of "one Adam," they say. Mark, in the eighth place, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that the foundation and doctrine of the Holy Scriptures are, that Christ and his regenerated church are of one God, Jn. 1:12, that is, those who hear and obey his word, Mark 3:36; Luke 8:21, and there­fore he calls them his brethren, and says, "I will declare thy name unto my breth­ren;" for as he is God's firstborn Son, Heb. 1:6, thus he is also the firstborn, of the brethren, Rom. 8:9. If he were our broth­er in Adam, as is the doctrine of our oppo­nents, then he must, also, have been Adam's first‑begotten son, as he is the first-begotten of the brethren, as was heard. Then, also, all the ungodly of the whole world, who have the devil as their father, Jn. 8:44, must be Christ's brethren and sis­ters, as well as the regenerated who have God as their Father. See if we do not teach you rightly according to the Scriptures.

Thirteenthly. The foundation and doc­trine of our opponents is, "That Christ has partaken of the flesh and blood of his chil­dren; which can not be explained or under­stood otherwise than that he has received his flesh and blood of the children." Mark, in the ninth place, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say that they thereby deny the word of the Lord and the ordinance 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 also the case, because Christ had no carnal children), and, if then the brethren should yet be carnal brethren, then they first break the Scripture, in explaining the one word, which is so closely connected to the other, as being understood in a spiritual373, and the other in a carnal sense. And, secondly, they assert an inconsistency. Consider whether they teach according to the Scriptures.

Fourteenthly. Micron frequently writes that Christ has taken unto himself the seed of Abraham, and refers to Heb. 2:16. In the tenth place, mark, 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 unto himself the seed of Abraham, that is, the children and descendants of Abraham. Mark, 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 unto her, 'Blessed art thou among women,'" Luke 1:28. See whether such doctrine can stand the test of the Scriptures.

We confess, and that according to the Scriptures, that as Mary was of the sinful seed of Adam, as we are, she, therefore, was concluded under sin, the same as we; for the Scriptures except none of Adam's seed, Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21; Gal. 3:22; Eph. 2:3. For if she would have been pure on account of such, as Micron says, "Then God might have cleansed the whole world by such a word; and it would have been vain to have sent his beloved Son into this wicked world, in such an humble form." Oh no. It required another who must re­quite 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 if 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 therefrom; and that man should not declare common or unholy that which God testifies to be holy," and refers to Acts 10:15.

We confess and say, and that in accord­ance with the Lord's word, that the Script­ure frees none from sin but him that is free indeed, namely, Christ Jesus, Isa. 63:12; 2 Cor. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 1 Jn. 3:5; whereby 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 not sin, became flesh, Jn. 1:14. 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, to the reconciliation of the sins of all the world, thus to compare it to the flesh of irrational animals which were for­bidden as food, under the law, and were, therefore, deemed unclean; and which are now again, under the gospel allowed as clean and free, as was once heard. See if we do not teach in accordance with Script­ure, Jn. 6:51; Lev. 11:4; Deut. 14:7; Rom. 14:20; Matt. 16:11; Mark 7:15; Acts 10:15; Tit. 1:15.

Twenty‑first. The doctrine of our op­ponents is, "That the Son of God has ful­filled the law in our flesh." In the four­teenth place, mark, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say, that it is the doctrine of the Holy Scripture that none 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, Deut. 27:26. Inas­much, then, as it is become so quite impo­tent and weak in Adam, and as the law ac­cused us before God, therefore he, in his great love, took pity upon Adam and all his seed, and did not spare his own Son, but he sent him in the form of sinful flesh, Rom. 8:3, 32, who fulfilled the law for us, Matt. 5:17; Eph. 2:13, who innocently died for us guilty sinners that through him we might live, 1 Pet. 2:24; and thus he be­came our holy, innocent and spotless High Priest, Mediator, Advocate and Reconciler, with God, his Father, Heb. 6:1; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:14; 10:12; 13:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Jn. 1:2. And thus the glory is to God our Almighty Father, by his blessed Word or Son, alone, as the Scriptures teach; and not by the accursed, sinful flesh of Adam, as our opponents teach, Rom. 7:14. Ob­serve whether we do not teach you in ac­cordance with the Scriptures.

374Twenty‑second. The distinct doctrine of our opponents is, "That the man Christ who died for us, was not of heaven, but of earth." In the fifteenth place, mark 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," Jn. 6:51. Again in verse 62, "What and if ye shall see the son of man (mark he says, The son of man, who Micron says, was of earth) ascend up where he was be­fore?" Again, "I am from above; ye are of this world," Jn. 8:23. Again, "He that cometh from above, is above all," Jn. 3:31. Christ says, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father," Jn. 16:28. Paul also says, "The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven," 1 Cor. 15:47, and 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, as 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 have, above all, the reality of the being; for the name cometh of the truth." Mark how he here judges himself.

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, 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 says other like things. Wheth­er or not Micron proves thereby that he calls 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 himself 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 can not be concluded therefrom that God's Son did not suffer for us." Mark how, here, the mere name, and not the reality, must avail with him, con­trary to his own doctrine.

We say that Micron manages it so with his flatterings that they may not be too much alarmed; for at 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 a 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 simply truthful declaiming, as he writes. I know not 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. This he writes 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 conduce to man's salvation otherwise than by such inseparable union of both the divine and human natures in one person, Jesus Christ." In the seventeenth place, mark, two sons, and a divided Christ.

We say, Micron generally 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 shall show us where the Scripture says, "This is the divine nature is 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 375natures 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, that we may reflect upon it. If it is no Scripture, it is anathema, Gal. 1:8, and if it is Scripture, let it be shown us, and we will yield. O, God! what abomin­able deceit which they falsely teach the poor, ignorant people under semblance of the Scriptures!

I would further say, that if it were such inseparable union, and that the same made his suffering have the power unto salvation, as he says, then it is manifest that also the divine nature suffered. For that which is inseparable cannot be separated, and in other places he says that the divine nature did not suffer; whereby he makes the nat­ures separable. Thus he contradicts him­self, and deceit remains deceit however he garbles the Scriptures by his flatterings. See if 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." Mark, two sons and a di­vided Christ.

We say that Micron makes his glozings worse and worse, so that it must be appar­ent that he advocates the cause of anti­christ. I leave it to the judgment of all the world if the man Christ (mark what he means by saying the man Christ) were of the seed of Mary, born of her, as the wine is of the vine, and the blossom and fruit are of the tree, if he was not, then, Mary's flesh and blood who was crucified for us? Al­though one could not say when Absalom hung upon the tree, there hangs David, as he writes, yet one could have truthfully said, There hangs David's flesh and blood; nei­ther do we say, that Mary was crucified, but Mary's flesh and blood (mind, I speak this in the manner of Micron) was crucified; that is, if he were born of the flesh and blood of Mary; or else the whole Scriptures must be wrong, which say that we are the seed, children, flesh and blood of Adam, on account of our carnal birth. Mark 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," Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:42. Mark 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," Isa. 7:14, "The mighty God" and "everlasting Father," Isa. 9:6, "The Lord Our Righteousness," Jer. 23:6; 33:16. Paul calls him our Lord, 1 Cor. 8:6; 12:3. Thomas called him, "my Lord and my God," Jn. 20:28. Christ says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," Matt. 28:18. Paul says, "That at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord," Phil. 2:10, 11. As 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," Eph. 1:21; that he is the Lord both of the dead and living; and if he is thus not also David's Immanuel, the Powerful, God, Father, Jehovah, Lord, Head, and Judge, all those may reflect upon 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." Behold 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, ineffable376 word is of the eternal, ineffable sub­stance of the Father, and must be, if it be 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 that it became truly man in Mary, by the Almighty power of God, Jn. 1:14. Behold, thus the Holy Scriptures teach, and thus we believe, not­withstanding Micron dares call it "dream­ing."

The holy angel Gabriel, and the dear evangelist, together with John the Baptist, Peter, and all the apostles, nay, 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, palpable, eating, drinking, speaking, sleeping, waking, walk­ing, teaching, sighing, weeping, dying and resurrecting Christ Jesus was the invisible, eternal and living Son of God, as may be plainly seen by the general tenor of the whole New Testament. O God, what abom­inable snares to catch the poor souls and to 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 Jn.1:1. "It was flesh, and could, therefore, not be­come flesh." Mark, 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, Jn. 1:14. For "God so loved the world," says Christ himself, "that he gave his only begotten Son." He spared not his own Son, says Paul, but delivered him up for us all, Rom. 8:32; and John says, "He sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins," 1 Jn. 4:10.

All those who controvert this, deny first, the eternal love of God who so loved us that he gave his only begotten Son, Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:10.

Secondly, they deny the promise of truth whereby God promised that the Messiah should be our Immanuel, Isa. 7:4, our God, Isa. 40:10, and the Lord Our Righteous­ness, Jer. 23:6; 33:16.

Thirdly, they deny the Almighty power of God, by which he can do whatsoever he will. They make Gabriel a false messen­ger, as he said that nothing was impossible with God, Luke 1:37.

Fourthly, they are in opposition to all the Scriptures which testify, without any separation, that Christ Jesus is the own, only and first‑begotten Son of God, Jn. 1:14; 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:9; Heb. 1:5; Rom. 8:32.

Fifthly, they make the Father a liar; for they do not believe the testimony which he has given of his Son, 1 Jn. 5:10.

Sixthly, they have neither Father nor Son; for they deny the Son, 1 Jn. 2:22.

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

Eighthly, they attach to Christ all the gross inconsistencies which neither Micron nor any other man can explain away, as may be clearly seen by 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. Mark, how diametrically they oppose the founda­tion of truth.

We say (note it) that if all 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, Jn. 2:9, it was turned into blood, Ex. 7:20. Lot's wife was changed into a pillar of salt, Gen. 19:26. All the dust of Egypt was changed into lice, Ex. 8:17; and many other mira­cles. The omnipotence of God was thereby acknowledged; yet it is not called a new creation in the Scriptures.

But we will let the polite, impartial read­er judge according to the Scriptures, if there would not have taken place a new creation in the case of Christ being born of Mary, as was in the beginning the case with Eve 377being made of Adam's rib, if our opponent's foundation were true. Consider whether we do not rightly teach in accordance with the Scriptures.

Thirty‑First. Micron writes "That we place in the stead of the true Christ, a new, unknown Christ whom neither the patri­archs, prophets, apostles, nor the many thousands of martyrs, &c., ever confessed."

We say that Micron, as also all the false prophets, thereby lamentably slander 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 manifest that the prophets confessed him to be their Imman­uel; and that he was to be the son of a vir­gin, who was to conceive of the Holy Ghost, Isa. 7:14, for God himself was to be his Father, Luke 1:31‑35. They confess him to be their mighty God, and everlasting Father, Isa. 9:6, their Jehovah who would make them and us righteous, Jer. 23:6; 33:16; 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, Ps. 110:2, he was to be the Lord, strong and mighty, and to be the Lord Sab­aoth, Ps. 24:8, which no man of Adam could be. Also, all the holy apostles, Matt. 14:33, the angel of God, Luke 1:28, the Father, Matt. 3:17; 17:16; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; 9:35, and Christ himself, Jn. 9:35, John the Baptist, Jn. 1:34; 3:28. Nathaniel, Jn. 1:49, and Martha, Jn. 11:27, confessed him to be the true Son of the true and living God, nay, to be his only, and first‑born, inseparable Son, all through the New Testament. I say inseparable; for, that the son of man was God's Son, and that the Son of God was the son of man, Peter plainly confessed, upon which, also, salvation was promised him of Christ; that the church would be built thereupon, and that flesh and blood had not revealed it unto him, but the Father which is in heaven, Matt. 16:17.

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; rob us of both Father and Son, make false and untrue all the Scriptures, together with all the apos­tles and prophets, nay, also, the Father and the Son, and take the innocent apos­tles, patriarchs, and prophets, with whom we agree in all particulars, as a mere cover for their falsehood; they point us from the firm foundation of truth to the quick‑sands of criticism, garbled Scriptures and glozing; build their church upon a man and creature of the impure, sinful seed and flesh of Adam, without father. And although they, poor children, are quite earthly and carnal, as may be seen by their writings and works, yet they boast that they rightly teach Christ; which none can do but by the reve­lation of the Father through the Holy Ghost, as Christ himself says, "No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him," Matt. 11:27.

Observe whether we teach a Christ to whom the prophets and apostles have not pointed us, as these unfaithful people false­ly accuse us of, 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 hid from them by their earthly, carnal vision.

Behold, honorable reader, here you have distinctly presented to view the principal differences between us and our opponents, concerning this article. And I will now faithfully show you, for further explana­tion, their unscriptural confessions, gar­blings and adulterations of the Scriptures, together with their principal glozings of which they make use without the Script­ures, or with a false and garbled under­standing of them, whereby 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, anal thus detain him in the curse, sin and death, as has been heard.

378