Page:Complete Works of Menno Simons.djvu/397

Rh Answer. The learned ever slander us and complain because we, with the angel Gabriel, Luke 1: 32; with John the Baptist, John 1: 15–36, with Peter, Matt. 16: 16; with Martha, John 11: 27; with the apostles, Matt. 14: 33, and with the eternal Father himself, acknowledge Christ, both according to his divinity and humanity, as the true and only begotten Son of God; and we dare not teach and believe more nor otherwise than the word of the Lord teaches us of him. I would therefore beseech all readers and hearers to consider well the following brief answers and references. I trust that, by the grace of God, I will be able to explain the matter so clearly in a few words, that the reader will plainly see that they not only rob us of Christ, the doctrine, sacraments, Spirit, life, ordinances, and usage of our Savior, but also rob him of his most holy origin, glory, honor, and person; and, that they, by their deceiving comments and reasoning, render Christ a divided, impure, and inconsistent Christ, both according to nature and the Scriptures. Whosoever has ears to hear let him hear, and whosoever has a mind to understand let him understand.

Answer. It seems very strange to me that the learned never cease to upbraid us by their indiscreet words, and cause us more and more tribulation, by the bloodthirsty; we, who have plainly and incontrovertibly on our side, the firm and immutable foundation of the holy apostles and prophets, nay, also the blessed word and testimony of Christ; while they have neither common reason nor the Scriptures on their side, as may be seen. For, that all the following weighty and intolerable improprieties and abominable errors result from their confession, is as clear as day.

First, A divided Christ; of which one half must have been heavenly and the other earthly; as some, even dare boldly assert that the person of Christ consisted of two principal parts, namely, God and man.

Secondly, An impure and sinful Christ, for the defense says: Christum non alterius ullius carnis participem factum esse, quana quae and peccato (ut tentaretur) and morti simul obnoxia esset, &c., that is, Christ partook of no other flesh but of sin, that he might be tempted and subject to death. At another place the defense says, in regard to Christ: Si sanctus (inquit) quomodo sub peccatum in Patris judicio condemnatur? that is, If Christ is holy, why is he then judged in the judgment of the Father because of sins? this agrees perfectly with the writing of Gellius; that the righteousness of God