The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 1 · Chapter 13

The Institutes of the Christian Religion · Book 1 · Chapter 13

p. 30The .xiii. Chapter. That there is taught in the scriptures one offence of God from the very creation, whiche essence conteineth in it thre persons:

THat which is taught in the scriptures concernyng the incomprehensible 1and spirituall essence of God, oughte to suffise not onelyonly to ouerthrowe the foolisshe errours of the common people, but also to confute the fine suttelties of prophane philosophie. One of the olde writers semed to hauehave said very wel, That God is al that we do see, and all that we doo not see. But by this meane he hathe imagined the godhead to be powred out into all y^e partes of the world. Although God, to the intent to kepe men in sobre mynde, speaketh but sparely of his owne essence, yet by those twoo names of addition that I hauehave rehersed, he doothe bothe take away all grosse imaginations, and also represse the presumptuous boldnesse of mans mynde. For surely his immeasurable greatnesse ought to make vsus afrayde, that we attempt not to measure hym with our sense: and his spirituall nature forbiddeth vsus to imagine any thyng earthly or fleshely of hym. For the same cause he often assigneth his dwellyng place to be in heauen. For though, as he is incomprehensible, he tilleth the earthe also: yet because he seeth oure myndes by reason of their dullnesse to lie still in the earthe, for good cause he lifteth vsus vp aboue the worlde, to shake of our slouth and sluggishnesse. And here falleth to grounde the errour of the Manichees, which in appointyng two originall beginnynges hauehave made the diuell in a maner egall with god. Surely this was as muche as to breake the vnitie of God and restrayne his vnmeasurablenesse. For where they hauehave presumed to abuse certain testimonies: that sheweth a fowle ignoraunce, as their errour it selfe sheweth a detestable madnesse. And the Anthropomorphites are also easily confuted which hauehave imagined God to consist of a bodye, because oftentymes the scripture ascribeth vntounto hym a mouthe, eares, eyes, handes, and feete. For what man yea though he be sclenderly witted dooth not vnderstande that God dooth so with vsus speake as it were childishly, as nurses doo with their babes? Therefore suche maners of speeche doo not so playnely expresse what God is, as they do apply the vnderstandyng of him to our sclender capacitie. Whiche to do, it behoued of necessitie that he descended a great way beneath his owne heyght.

But he also setteth out hymselfe by an other speciall marke, wherby 2he may be more nerely knowen. For he so declareth hymselfe to bee but one, that he yet geueth himselfe distinctly to be considered in three persons: whiche except we learne, a bare and empty name of god without any true God flieth in our braine. And that no man should thinke that he is a threfolde God, or that the one essence of God is diuided in three persons, we must here seke a short and easy definition to deliuer vsus frō all errour. But because many doo make muche a doo about this worde Person, as a thyng inuented by man: howe iustly they doo so, it is beste fyrst to see. The apostles namyng the sonne, the engraued forme of the Hypostasis of his father,Heb. i.iiiHeb 1 he vndoubtedly meaneth, that the Father hath some beeyng, wherin he differeth from the sonne. For to take it for Essence (as some expositours hauehave done, as if Christ like a piece of waxe printed with a seale didde represent the substaunce of the Father) were not onelyonly harde but also an absurditie. For sithe the Essence of God is single or one and vndiuisible, he that in hym selfe conteineth it all and not by pecemeale, or by deriuation, but in whole perfection, should very vnproprely yea fondly bee called the engraued forme of hym. But because y^e father although he be in his own propretie distinct, hath expressed hymselfe wholly in his sonne, it is for good cause sayde, that he hath geuen his Hypostasis, to be seene in hym. Wherwith aptely agreeth that which by and by foloweth, that he is the brightnesse of his glory. Surely by the Apostles wordes we gather▪ that there is a certayn propre hypostasis in the father, that shineth in the sonne: whereby also agayne is easily perceiued the Hypostasis of the sonne that distinguisheth him from the Father. Like order is in the holy ghost. for we shall by and by proue hym to be God, and yet he must nedes be other than the father. Yet this distinction is not of the essence, whiche it is vnlawfull to make manyfolde. Therfore if the Apostles testimonie be credited, it foloweth that there be in God thre hypostases. This terme seyng the Latines hauehave expressed with the name of Person, it were to muche pride and waywardnesse to brawle about so cleere a matter. But if we list worde for worde to translate, we may call it Subsistence. Many in the same sense hauehave called it substance. And the name of Person hath not ben in vse among the Latins onelyonly: but also the Grecians, perhaps to declare a consente, hauehave taught that there are three prosopa, that is to say Persons in God. But they, whether they be Grekes or Latins that differ one from an other in the worde, doo very well agree in the summe of the matter.

Nowe howesoeuer the heretikes barke at the name of persone, or 3some ouermuch precise men do carpe that thei like not the worde fained by deuise of men: sithe they can not get of vsus to say, that there be three, whereof eueryevery one is wholly God, nor yet that there be many goddes: what vnreasonablenesse is this, to myslyke woordes, whiche expresse none other thynge but that whiche is testified and approued by the scriptures? It were better (say they) to restraine not only our meanynges but also oure woordes within the boundes of scripture, than to deuyse straunge names that may be the begynnynges of disagrement & brawlyng: so doo we tyer our selues with strife about woordes: so the truthe is loste in contending: so charitie is broken by odiousely brawlyng together. If they call that a straunge woorde, whiche can not be shewed in scripture, as it is written in nombre of syllables: then they bynde vsus to a hard law, wherby is condemned all exposition y^e is not pie…ed together, with bare laying together of textes of scripture. But if they meane that to be straunge, whiche beyng curiousely deuised, is superstitiousely defended, whiche maketh more for contention than edification, whiche is either vnaptely, or to no profite vsed, whiche withdraweth from the simplicitie of the word of God, then with all my hart I embrace their sobre minde. For I iudge that we ought with no lesse deuout reuerence to talke of God than to thynke of him, for as muche as what soeuer we doo of our selues thinke of him, is foolishe, and what so euer we speake is vnsauorye. But there is a certayn measure to be kepte. We ought to learne out of the scriptures a rule bothe to thynke and speake, wherby to examine all the thoughtes of our mynde and wordes of our mouth. But what withstandeth vsus, but that suche as in scripture are to our capacitie doutfull and entangled, we may in plainer woordes expresse theim, beynge yet suche wordes as doo reuerently and faithfully serue the truthe of the scripture, and be vsed sparely, modestly, and not without occasion. Of whiche sort there are examples enowe. And where as it shall by profe appere that the Churche of great necessitie was enforced to vse the names of Trinitie, and Persones, if any shall then fynde faulte with the newenesse of woordes, shall he not be iustly thought to be greeued at the lyght of the truthe, as he that blameth onelyonly this that the truthe is made so playne and cleare to discerne?

Suche newnesse of woordes, if it be so to bee called, commeth then 4chiefly in vse, when the truthe is to be defended against wranglers that doo mocke it out with cauillations. Whiche thyng we hauehave at this daye to muche in experience, who hauehave great businesse in vanquisshynge the enemies of true and sounde doctrine. With suche foldyng and crooked windyng these slippery snakes doo slide away, vnlesse they be strongly griped and holden hard when they be taken. So the old fathers beyng troubled with contendyng againste false doctrines, were compelled to shewe theyr meanynges in exquisite playnnesse, least they should leaue any crooked bywayes to the wicked, to whom the doutful constructions of woordes were hidyngholes of errours. Arrius confessed Christe to be God, and the sonne of God, because he coulde not agaynsay the euident wordes of God, and as if he had ben so sufficiently discharged did fayne a certayne consent with the rest. But in the meane while he ceassed not to scatter abroade that Christe was create, and had a beginnyng as other creatures. But to the ende they myght drawe foorth his windyng sutteltie out of his denne, the auncient fathers went further, pronouncyng Christ to be the eternall sonne of the father and consubstanciall with the father. Hereat wickednesse began to boile, when the Arrians began to hate and deteste the name Omoousion, consubstanciall. But if in the beginnyng they had sincerely and with playn meanynge confessed Christ to be God, they would not now hauehave denyed hym to be consubstantiall with the father. Who dare nowe blame these good men as brawlers and contentious, bycause for one litle woordes sake, they were so whote in disputation, and troubled the quiete of the churche? But that little worde shewed the difference betwene the true beleuyng Christians, and the Arrians that wer robbers of God. Afterward rose vp Sabellius whiche accompted in a maner for nothyng the names of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy ghost, sayeng in disputation that they were not made to shewe any maner of distinction, but onelyonly were seuerall additions of God, of whiche sorte there are many. If he came to disputation, he confessed, that he beleeued the father God, the sonne God, the Holy ghost God. But afterwarde he would redely slippe away with sayeng that he hadde in no otherwise spoken than as if he had named God, a strong God, iust God, and wise God: and so he song another songe, that the Father is the Sonne, and the Holy ghost is the father, without any order, without any distinction. The good doctours which then had care of godlynesse, to subdewe his wickednesse, cried oute on the other side that there ought to be acknowleged in one God thre propreties. And to the ende to fense themselues againste the crooked writhen suttleties with plaine and simple truthe, they affirmed, that there did truely subsist in one God, or (which came all to one effect) that there did subsist in the vnitie of God a Trinitie of persons.

5If then the names hauehave not ben without cause inuented, we ought to take hede, that in reiectyng them we be not iustly blamed of proude presumptuousnesse. I woulde to God they wer buried in dede, so that this faith were agreed of all men, that the Father and the Sonne, and the Holy ghost bee one God: and yet that the Father is not the Sonne, nor the Holy ghost the Sōne, but distinct by certain propretie. Yet am I not so precise, that I can fynde in my harte to striue for bare wordes. For I note, that the olde fathers, whiche otherwise spake very religiousely of such matters, did not eueryevery wher agree one with an other, nor eueryone with himselfe. For what formes of speeche vsed by the councels doothe Hilarie excuse▪ To howe greate libertie doothe Augustine sometyme breake foorth? Howe vnlyke are the Grekes to the Latins? But of this variance one example shal suffise for this tyme. When the Latins ment to expresse the word Omoousion, they called it Consubstancial, declaring the substance of the Father and the Sonne to be one, so vsyng the word substance for essence. Whervpon Hierom to Damasus sayth, it is sacrilege to say, that there are thre substances in God: and yet aboue a hundred tymes you shall fynde in Hilarie, that there are three substances in God. In the woorde Hypostasis, howe is Hierome accombred? For he suspecteth that there lurketh poison in namyng thre Hypostases in God. And if a man do vse this word in a godly sense, yet he plainly saith that is an impropre speeche, if he spake vnfainedly, and dyd not rather wittyngly and willyngly seeke to charge the bishoppes of the Eastlandes▪ whome he soughte to charge with an vniuste sclaunder. Sure this one thynge he speaketh not very truely, that in all prophane schooles. ousia, De trini. li. v. cap. viii. &. ix.essence is nothyng els but hypostasis, whyche is proued false by the common and accustomed vse. Augustine is more modeste and gentyll, whiche although he say, that the worde hypostasis in that sense is strange to latine eares, yet so farre is it of that he taketh from the Grekes theyr vsuall maner of speakyng, that he also gently beareth with the Latins that had folowed the greke phrase. And that whiche Socrates writeth in the syxte booke of the Tripartite hystorie, tendeth to this ende, as though he ment that it hadde by vnskilfull men bene wrongfullye applied vntounto this matter.De trini. lib. ii. Yea and the same Hilarie hymselfe layethe it for a greate faulte to the heretikes charge, that by theyr waywardnesse he is compelled, to putte those thynges in perylle of the speche of men, whyche oughte to hauehave beene kepte in the relygiousnesse of myndes, playnely confessynge that this is to doo thynges vnlaufull, to speake that ought not to bee spoken, to attempt thynges not licenced. A little after, he excuseth himself w^t many words, for that he was so bold to vtter newe names. For after he had vsed the natural names Father, Sonne, and Holy ghost, he addeth that what soeuer is sought further, is beyōd the compasse of speache, beyonde the reache of sense, and beyonde the capacitie of vnderstandynge. And in an other place he saith, y^e happy ar y^e bishops of Gallia, which neither had nor receiued p. 32nor knewe any other confession, but that olde and simple one, whiche from the time of the Apostles was receyued in all churches. And muche like is the excuse of Augustine, that this woorde was wroung oute of necessitie by reason of the imperfection of mens language in so greate a matter: not to expresse that whiche is, but that it shoulde not bee vnspoken howe the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy ghoste are three. This modestie of the holy menne ought to warne vsus, that we doo not foorthwith so seuerely lyke Censors, note them with infamie that refuse to subscribe and sweare to suche wordes as we propounde them: so that they doo it not of pride, of frowardnesse, or of malicious crafte. But let them again consider, by how great necessitie we are driuen to speake so, that by littell & little they may be enured with that profitable maner of speche. Let them also learne to beware, least sithe we must mete on the one syde with the Arrians, on the other syde with Sabellians, whyle they be offended that we cutte of occasion from them both to cauill, they bryng themselues in suspicion, that they be y^e disciples either of Arrius or of Sabellius. Arrius sayth that Christe is God, but he muttereth that he was create, and had a beginnyng. He saith Christe is one with the father, but secretely he whispereth in the eares of his disciples, that he was made one as the other faithfull be, although by singular prerogatiue. Say ones that Christ is Consubstanciall with his father, then plucke you of his visour from the dissembler, and yet you adde nothyng to the scripture, Sabellius sayth, that the seueral names, Father, Son, and Holy ghost signifie nothyng in God seuerally distincte: saye that they are three: and he will crye out that you name thre gods. Saye that there is in one essence a Trinitie of persons, then shal you in one word bothe saye, what the scripture speaketh, and stop their vayne babblyng. Nowe if any be holden with so curious superstition, that they can not abide these names: yet is there no man, though he wold neuer so fayn, that can deny but that when we heare of one, we must vnderstande an vnitie of substance: when we here of thre in one essence, that it is ment of the persons in the trinitie. Which thyng beyng without fraude confessed, we stay no longer vponupon wordes. But I hauehave long ago foūd, and that often, that who soeuer do obstinately quarell about woordes, doo keepe within them a secrete poison: so that it is better willyngly to prouoke theim, than for their pleasure to speake darkly.

But leauyng disputation of woordes I will nowe begyn to speake 6of the matter it selfe. I call therfore a Persone, a subsistence in the essence of God, which hauyng relation to the other is distinguished from them with vncōmunicable propretie. By the name of Subsistence we meane an other thyng than the essence. For if the worde had simply ben God, and in the meane tyme had nothynge seuerally propre to it selfe, Iohn hadde sayde amysse, that it was with god. Where he foorthewith addeth,Iohn. i. …John 1 that God hymselfe was the same woorde, he calleth vsus backe agayne to the one single essence. But because it could not be with God, but that it must rest in the father: hereof ariseth that subsistence, which though it be ioyned to the essence with an vnseparable knot, yet hath it a speciall marke, wherby it doth differ from it. So of the three subsistences▪ I say that eche hauyng relation to other is in propretie distinguished. Relation is here expressely mencioned. For when there is simple and indefinite mencion made of God, this name belongeth no lesse to the Sonne and the Holy ghoste, than to the Father. But when the Father is compared with the Sonne, the seuerall propretie of eyther doth discerne hym from the other. Thirdely, what soeuer is propre vntounto eueryevery of them is vncommunicable. For that which is geuen to the Father for a marke of difference,Lib. contra Traccam can not agree with, nor be geuen to the Son. And I mislyke not the definition of Tertullian, so that it be rightly taken, That there is in God a certayne disposition or distribution, which yet chaungeth nothyng of the vnitie of the essence.

But before that I go any further, it is good that I proue the Godhead 7of the Sonne and of the Holy ghost. Then after we shall see, how they differ one from an other. Surely when the Worde of God is spoken of in the Scripture: it were a very greate absurditie to imagin it only a fadyng and vanishyng voyce, whiche sente into the ayre, cometh out of God hymselfe, of whiche sort were the oracles geuen to the fathers, and all the prophecies: when rather the woorde is mente to bee the perpetuall wisedome abidyng with the Father, from whens all the oracles and prophecies proceded. For as Peter testifieth, no lesse didde the olde prophetes speake with the spirite of Christ,i. Pet. ….i…. than dyd the Apostles and all they that after them dyd distribute the heauenly doctrine. But because Christe was not yet openly shewed, we must vnderstande that the Worde was before all worldes begotten of the Father. And if the Spirite was of the Worde, whose instrumentes were the prophetes, we do vndoutedly gather that he was true god. And this doth Moses teache playnly enough in the creation of the world, when he setteth the worde as the meane. For why dooth he expressely tell, that God in creatyng of all his woorkes sayd, Be this doone, or that doon: but that the vnserchable glory of god may shiningly appere in his images? The suttlenosed and babblyng men do easily mock out this, with sayeng that the name Woorde, is there taken for his byddynge or commaundemente. But better expositors are the Apostles,Heb. i.ii.Heb 1 whiche teache that the worldes were made by the same, and that he susteineth theym all with his mightie Worde. For here we see y^t the Word is taken for the bidding or commaundement of the Sonne, which is hymselfe the eternall and essentiall Word to the Father. And to the wise and sobre it is not darke that Salomon sayth,Ecclesi. xxiiii.xiiii where he bryngeth in Wisedom begotten of God before all worldes, and bearyng rule in the creation of thynges, and in all the workes of God. For to say that it was a certayne commaundement of God, seruyng but for a tyme, were very foolishe and vayne: where as in deede it was Goddes pleasure at that tyme to shewe foorth his stedfast and eternall purpose, yea and some thyng more secrete. To whyche entente also maketh that sayinge of Christe: My Father and I doo woorke euen to this daye.Iohn. v.xvii.John 5 For in sayinge, That from the begynnyng of the worlde he was contynually woorkynge with his Father, he doothe more openly declare that whyche Moses hadde more shortely touched. We gather then that the meanynge of Goddes speakynge was this, that the Worde hadde his office in the doynge of thynges, and so they bothe had a common woorkynge togyther. But moste playnely of all doothe Iohn speake, when he shewethe that the same Woorde, whyche from the begynnyng was God with God, was togyther p. 33God the Father the cause of all thynges. For he both geueth to the Worde a perfecte and abydyng essence,Ioh. i.iii.John 1 and also assygneth vntounto it some thyng peculiar to it selfe, and plainlye sheweth how God in speakyng was the creatour of the worlde. Therefore as all reuelacions proceding from God dooe well beare the name of the worde of God, so oughte we yet to sette in the hyeste place that substancyall Worde, the well spryng of all Oracles, whiche being subiecte to no alteracion, abideth alwayes one and the selfe same with God, and is God hymselfe.

Here many dogges dooe barke agaynste vsus, whiche when they 8dare not openly take from him his Godhead, doe secretly steale from him his Eternitie. For they saye, that the Worde then beganne firste to be, when God in the creation of the world opened his holy mouthe. But verie vndiscretelye dooe they to imagine a certaine innouacyon of the substaunce of God. For as those names of God that hauehave relacion to his outwarde worke, beganne to be geuen vntounto hym after the being of his worke, as for example, thys that he is called the creatour of heauen and earth: so doeth Godlynesse knowe or admitte no name that shoulde signifie any newe thinge in hymselfe to hauehave chaunced vntounto God. For if any shoulde come to him from ells where than in hymselfe, then thys saying of Iames shoulde fayle, that eueryevery good geuing and eueryevery perfecte gifte is from aboue, and commeth downe from the Father of lightes, with whom is no variablenesse neyther shadowing by turning. Therfore nothing is lesse to be suffred, thā to faine a beginning of that Worde, whiche both alwaye was God, and afterwarde was creator of the worlde. But full suttelly forsoth they reason, that Moses in saying that God then first spake, doeth secretlye shewe that there was no Worde in him before. Whiche is a moste tryfling argumente. For it foloweth not, because a thyng at some one certaine time beginneth to be shewed openly, that therefore it had neuer anye beyng before.But I conclude farre otherwyse and saye: seyng that in the same momente that God sayed,Ge. i.iii, lette lighte be made, the power of the worde appeared and shewed it selfe: the same Worde was longe before. But if a man aske howe long before, he shall fynde no beginnyng. For he appointed no certayne space of tyme when hym selfe sayed:Ioh, xvii.v, Father glorifie me with the glory which I had wyth thee before the worlde was. And thys thyng Iohn also left not vntouched, because he fyrst sheweth that in the beginning the worde was with God, before that he commeth to the creation of the worlde. We saye therefore agayne, that the Worde whyche was conceyued of God before any beginning of tyme, was contynuallye remayninge wyth hym. Whereby bothe hys eternitie, true essence, and Godhead is proued.

Althoughe I dooe not yet touche the person of the Mediator, but 9do deferre it to that place where we shall specially entreate of the Redempcion: yet because it oughte to be certaynly holden wythoute controuersie amonge al men, that Christ is the same Word clad with flesh, in this place will be very fitte to recite all those testimonies that proue Chryst to be God.ps, xlv, vi, When it is sayed in the .xlv. Psalme, thy throne O God is for euer and euer: the Iewes doe cauill and saye, that the name Elohim is also applied to the Angels and soueraigne powers. But in all the Scripture there is not a like place, that raiseth an eternall throne to any creature. For he is here not simplye called God, but also the eternall Lorde. Againe, this tittle is geuen to none but with an addicion,E…o. vii.i as it is saied: that Moses shalbe for a God to Pharao. Some rede it in the Genitiue case which is verye foolishe. I graunte in dede that oftentimes a thing is called Diuine or of God, that is notable by any singular excellence: but here by the tenoure of the texte it appeareth, that suche a meaning were harde and forced, and will not agree. But if their scubbornesse will not so yelde: In Esaie is verie plainly broughte in for all one both Christe and God, and he that is adorned with the soueraigne power, whiche is properly belonging to God alone. This (saieth he) is the name wherby they shall call him,Esa. i….viIsa 1 the strong God, the Father of the world to come &c. Here the Iewes barcke againe, and turne the texte thus: this is the name whereby the stronge God the father of the worlde to come shall call him: so that they leaue this onelyonly to the Sonne to bee called the Prince of peace. But to what purpose shoulde so many names of addicion in this place bee heaped vponupon God the Father, seeyng it is the purpose of the Prophete to adorne Chryste with suche speciall notes as maie builde oure Faith vppon him? Wherfore it is oute of doute that he is here in like sorte called the stronge God, as he is a little before called Immanuell.Ier. xxiii.…ii.Jer 23 But nothing can be founde plainer than that place of Hieremie where he sayeth, that this shall be the name whereby the sede of Dauid shall be called Iehouah oure righteousnesse. For where the Iewes themselues doe teach, that all other names of God are but adiectiue names of addicion, and that this only name Iehouah whiche they call vnspeakable is a substantiue name to expresse hys essence: we gather that the Sonne is the onelyonly and eternall God,Esa. xlii.viii.Isa 42 which saith in an other place that he wil not geue his glory to an other. But here also they seke to scape away because that Moses gaue that name to the Altare that he bilded, and Ezechiel gaue it to the newe citie Hierusalem. But who doth not see that the Altare was builded for a monumente that God was the auauncement of Moses. And that Hierusalem is not adorned with the name of God, but onelyonly to testifie the presence of God? For thus sayeth the Prophete. The name of the citie from that day shalbe Iehouah there.Ez. xlviii xxxv. Ero. xvii xv. …r. xxxvi xvi. And Moses sayth thus. He bilded an altare and called the name of it, Iehouah my exaltacion. But more businesse ariseth by an other place of Hieremie, where the same tittle is applyed to Hierusalem in these wordes: this is the name whereby they shall call her Iehouah our righteousnesse. But thys testimonye is so farre from makyng agaynste the trueth whiche we defende, that it rather confirmeth it. For wheras he had before testified that Christ is the true Iehouah from whom floweth ryghteousnesse, nowe he pronounceth that the churche shall so verely fele the same, that she may gloriouslye vse the very name it selfe. And so in the firste place is sette the fountayne and cause of ryghteousnesse, in the other the effecte.

10Nowe if thys dooe not satisfie the Iewes, that Iehouah is so ofte presented in the personne of an Angell, I see not wyth p. 34what cauillations they canne mocke it oute. It is saied that the Angell appeared to the holy fathers: and the same Angell chalengeth to hymselfe the name of the eternall God.Iu. vi.vii If any take excepcion and say, that this is spoken in respecte of the Person that he representeth: thys knotte is not thus losed.Iu. xiii.xvi. For being a seruaunte he woulde not suffer Sacrifice to be offered to hym and take from God his due honoure. But the Angell refusing to eate bread, commaundeth Sacrifice to bee offered to Iehouah. And then he proueth that hymselfe in dede was the same Iehouah, and therefore Manoah and his wife by thys token did gather, that they had seen not an only Angel but God. And thence came it that he sayed: we shall dye because we hauehave seen God. And when hys wyfe answereth, if Iehouah woulde hauehave slayen vsus, he woulde not hauehave receaued Sacrifice at oure handes: in thys she doeth confesse that he was God whiche before was called the Angell. Besyde thys, the answere of the Angell hymselfe taketh away all doubte of it, saying: why doest thou aske me of my name, which is maruellous? So much the more detestable was the wickednesse of Seruetto, when he affirmed that God neuer appeared to Abraham and the other fathers, but that an Angell was worshipped in place of him. But truely and wisely hauehave the true teaching doctors of the Churche expounded, that the same principall Angell was the worde of God, which then as aforehande beganne to execute the office of Mediatoure. For thoughe he was not yet clothed with fleshe, yet he came down as a meane betwene God and men, to come more familiarly to the faithfull. Therefore hys nye communicating himselfe made him to be called an Angell: yet still in the meane time he reteined that which was his own, to be y^e God of vnspeakable glory.Ose. xii.vHos 12 Thesame thing meaneth Oseas, which after he had recited the wraftlyng of Iacob with the Angell, sayeth: Iehouah the God of hostes, Iehouah, worthy of memory is his name. Here agayne Seruetto carpeth, y^t God did beare the person of an Angel. As thoughe the Prophete did not confirme that whiche Moses had saied: why doest thou aske me of my name? And the confession of the holye Patriarche doeth sufficiently declare that he was not a created Angell, but one in whom the full godhead was residente,Ge. xxxii.xxix. i. Cor. x.iiii. zach. ii.iii1 Cor 10 when he saied: I hauehave seen God face to face. And for thys cause Paule sayeth, that Chryste was guide of the people in the wyldernesse. For thoughe the tyme was not yet come of his abacemente: yet that eternall worde shewed a figure of that office to whiche he was appointed. Nowe if the seconde Chapter of zacharie be weyed withoute contencion, the Angell that sente an other Angell was by and by pronounced to be the God of hostes, and to hym is soueraigne power ascribed. I omitte innumerable testimonies on the which oure Fayth safelye resteth, althoughe they doe not muche moue the Iewes. For when it is saied in Esaie. Beholde this is our God,Es xxv.ixIsa 25 this is Iehouah, we shal waite vponupon him, and he shall saue vsus, they that hauehave eyes may see, that herein is meant God which ryseth vp for the saluacion of his people. And these vehement demonstracions twise repeted suffer it to be drawen no otherwhere but to Christe. And yet plainer and fuller is the place of Malachie where he promyseth that he shall come the Lorde that was the desired,Mal. iii.i.Mal 3 to hys owne temple. But to none but to the onelyonly soueraigne God was the temple dedicate, which temple yet the Prophete doeth claime for Christ. Wher vponupon foloweth that Christe is the same God that was euer honored among the Iewes.

11As for the newe testamente, it swarueth with innumerable testimonies, therfore we must trauayle rather shortly to choose out fewe, than largely to heape vp all. For thoughe the Apostles speake of him since he was nowe become the Mediatour in fleshe: yet all that I shalll bring forth shall aptly serue to proue his godhead. Firste this is worthy to be singularly marked, that those thinges which were before spoken touching the eternall God, the Apostles doe shewe that they are either already performed, or hereafter to be performed in Christ. For where Esaie prophecieth that the Lorde of hostes shalbe to the Iewes and Israelites a strombling stone and a rocke to fall vponupon:Esa, viii, xiiii, Rom, ix, xxiii. Ro. xiiii.x. Esa. iv. xxiii.Rom 14Isa 4 Paule affirmeth that the same is fulfilled in Christ. Therefore he declareth him to be the Lorde of hostes. Likewise in an other place. We must al (saith he) ones be broughte to appeare before the iudgemente throne of Christe. For it is written, to me shall all knees bowe, and to me shall al tonges swere. Seing God in Esai speaketh this thing of himselfe, and Christe in dede performeth it in himselfe, it foloweth that he is the selfe same God whoes glory may not be withdrawen to an other. And that thing which writing to the Ephesians he allegeth out of the Psalmes, is euident that it can be applyed to none but to God alone.Ephe. iiii v…ii. Psa. lvii.xix.Eph 4Ps 57 Ascending on hie he hath caryed captiuitie captiue, meaning that such ascending was in shadow shewed, when God in notable victory against forein nations did shewe forth his power, but he declareth that in Christe it was more fully performed. So Ihon testifieth that it was the glory of the Sōne that was reueled to Esaie by a vision,Iohn. i.xiiii. Esa. vi.i.John 1Isa 6 wheras in dede the Prophete himselfe writeth that the maiestie of God appeared vntounto hym. And it is euidente that those thinges whiche the Apostle wryting to the Hebrues applieth to the Sonne, are the plaine titles of God. as: Thou Lorde in the beginning diddest laye the foundacions of heauen and earth.Heb. i.x. and .vi.Heb 1 &c. Agayne worship him all ye his Angels. And yet he abuseth not those tittles when he draweth them to Chryst. For al those thinges that are spoken of in those Psalmes, he hymselfe alone hath fulfylled. For it was he that rose vp and had mercy on Siō. It was he that claimed to hymselfe the kingdome of all the nations and ilandes.Iohn. i.i.John 1 And why shoulde Ihon sticke to apply the maiestie of God to Chryste whiche in hys preface had sayed that the worde was alwaye God? Why shoulde Paule feare to sette Chryste in the iudgemente throne of God,ii. Cor. x. Ro. ix.v.2 Cor 10Rom 9 hauing before wyth so open proclamacion declared hys Godhead, where he sayed that he was God blessed to the ende of Worldes? And to make appeare, howe well he agreeth in thys poynte wyth hymselfe, in an other place he wryleth that Chryst is God openly shewed in the fleshe. If he be God to be praysed to the ende of worldes,i. Tim. iii xvi.1 Tim 3 then he is the same he to whom in an other place he affirmeth all glorye and honoure to be due. And thus he hydeth not, but playnly cryeth oute, that he woulde hauehave counted it no robbery if he had shewed himselfe egall wyth God,i. Timo. ixvii. Phi. ii.vi but that he wyllyngly abaced hymselfe. And that the wycked shoulde not carpe that he is some made GOD, Ihon p. 35goeth further and saith. He is the true God & the eternal life. Although it oughte aboundantly to satisfie vsus,Ioh. v.xxJohn 5 that he is called God, specially of that witnesse which expresly affirmeth vntounto vsus y^t there are no moe gods but one.1. Cor. viii.v.i. Tim. iii xvi. Act. xx.xxviii. Ioh. xx.xxviii.1 Cor 81 Tim 3Acts 20John 20 That same witnesse is Paule, which saieth thus. How many soeuer be called goddes either in heauen or in earth, to vsus there is but one God from whom are all thinges. When we heare of the same mouth, that God was openly shewed in the fleshe, that God wyth hys owne bloud purchased the churche to himselfe: why shoulde we imagine a seconde God whiche he himselfe acknowledgeth not? And it is no dout that all the godlye were of the same meaning. Likewise Thomas in protesting him to bee his Lorde and his God, doeth professe that he is that onelyonly one God whom he had alway worshipped.

Nowe if we esteme his Godhead by the workes that in the Scripture 12are ascribed vntounto him, it shall thereby more euidentlie appeare. For when he saied that from the beginning he was thetherto working with his father:Ioh. v.xvii,John 5 the Iewes whiche were moste dull in vnderstandyng of all his other sayinges, yet then perceiued that he toke vponupon him the power of God. And theretore, as Iohn telleth, they soughte the more to kill him, because he didde not onelyonly breake the Sabbat, but also dyd call God his father, making himselfe egall with God. Howe dull shall we be then, if we doe not perceiue that his godhead is herein playnlye affirmed? And truely to order the worlde with prouidence and power, and to gouerne all thinges with the authoritie of his owne mighte, whiche the Apostle ascribeth vntounto him,Hie. i.iii. belongeth to none but onelyonly the creatoure. And he not onelyonly enterparteneth the gouernemente of the world with his Father, but also all other offices which can not be made common to God with his creatures. The Lord crieth out by the Prophete: I am he, I am he, that doe awaye thyne offences for myne owne sake.Esa. xliii.xxv. Ma. ix, viIsa 43 According to the meaning of thys sentence whē the Iewes thoughte that wronge was done to god for that Christe did forgeue sinnes, Christe not onelyonly affirmed in words but also proued by miracle that this power belonged vntounto himselfe. We see therefore that he hath, not the ministracion, but the power of forgeuenesse of synnes, whiche the Lorde sayeth he wil not suffer to passe away from hymselfe to any. What shall we saye of searching and pearcing the secrete thoughtes of hartes?Math. ix.iiii.Matt 9 is it not the propretie of god alone? But the same had Chryst: wherby is gathered that he is God.

Nowe, in his miracles howe plainlye and clerely doeth he appeare? 13And thoughe I graunte that as well the Prophetes as the Apostles did egall and like miracles to these that he did: yet thys greate differēce is there, that they by their ministracion disposed the giftes of God, he shewed forth his owne power. He vsed sometime praier, to the ende to geue glory vntounto hys Father. But we see for the moste part his own power shewed vntounto vsus. And howe coulde it otherwise be but that he was the verye author of miracles that by hys owne authorite gaue power to other to deale miracles abrode? For the Euangelist declareth that he gaue power to the Apostles to rayse vp the dead,Mat. x.viii. Mar, iii.xv. and vi.vii.Matt 10 to heale the leprous, to cast out deuils. &c. And the so vsed the ministraciō therof that they sufficientlye shewed that thys power came not from els where but from Christ.…et. iii.vi. Iohn. v.xxxvi. and x.xxxvii. and .xiiii.xi.John 5 In the name of Iesus Christ (saieth Peter) Rise and walke. If is therfore no maruel if Christ alleged his miracles to cōfound the vnbeleuingnesse of the Iewes: forasmuch as they wer such as being done by hys own power dyd geue a most playne testymonie of his godhead. If els where then in God there is no saluacion, no righteousnesse, no life: and Chryst conteyneth al these thynges in hym, surely he is thereby declared to be God. And no man can obiect against me and say, that lyfe and saluacion is poured into hym by God: for it is not saied that he receyued saluacion but that he is saluacion hymselfe. And if none be good but onelyonly God: howe can he be onelyonly man, beyng I wil not say good and iuste, but selfe goodnesse and iustyce? Yea from the first beginnyng of the creacion as the Euangeliste wytnesseth in hym was lyfe: and he euen then beeyng lyfe was the lyghte of men.Mat. xix.xvii. Ioh. i.iiii. Ioh xii.i.i. Esa. xxvi.xvi. Es. xi.x. Rom. x xi ….xv.xii.Matt 19John 1John 12Isa 26Isa 11Rom 10 Wherefore beyng supported wyth suche proues we are bolde to repose our fayth and hope in hym: when yet we knowe that it is an vngodlynesse y^t robbeth God for any man to fasten hys confydence in creatures. Beleue ye in God? sayeth he. Beleue then also in me. And so doeth Paule expounde those two places of Esay. Whosoeuer trusteth in hym shall not be putte to shame. Agayne. Oute of the roote of Isai shall he come that shall ryse to rule peoples, in hym the nations shall truste. And why shoulde we seke oute more testimonies of Scripture for thys matter, when we so often mete with this sentence? He that beleueth in me hath euerlasting lyfe. Moreouer the inuoracion whyche hangeth vppon Faythe belongeth also to hym, whyche yet is proper to the maiestie of God if he hauehave any thyng at all proper to hymselfe.Io. ii.xxxii …r. xviii, x.John 2 For one Prophete sayeth: whosoeuer calleth vponupon the name of Iehoua shalbe saued: and an other sayeth a moste stronge toure is the name of Iehouah: to it the ryghteous shall flee and he shalbe saued, but the name of Chryst is called vponupon for saluacion:Ac…. vii lix. Act. ix.xiiiActs 9 it foloweth therfore that he is Iehouah. As for inuocacion, we hauehave an example of it in Stephen, when he sayeth, Lorde Iesu receiue my spirite. Againe in the whole churche, as Ananias testifyeth in the same booke. Lorde (sayeth he) thou knowest howe great euylles this man hath done to thy Saintes that call vppon thy name. And that it maye bee more playnly vnderstanded that the whole fulnesse of the Godhead doeth corporally dwell in Chryste,…. Cor…. ii. the Apostle dooeth confesse that he broughte no other doctryne amonge the Corinthians but the knowledge of hym, and that he preached no other thyng but that knowledge. What, I praye you, and howe greate a thyng is thys, that the name of the Sonne only is preached vntounto vsus whom he willeth to glory in the knowledge of hymselfe alone?Hie. ix.xxiiii. Who dare saye that he is but a creature, of whom the onelyonly knowledge is our whole glorye? Beside that, the salutacyons sette before the Epystles of Paule, wyshe the same benefites from the Sōne which they do from the Father, wherby we are taughte not only that those thyngs whych the Father geueth vsus do come vntounto vsus by his intercessiō, but also by communitie of power, he is the author of them. Whiche knowledge by practise is wythoute doute more certayne and perfecte than any idle speculacion. For there the godly mynde doth beholde God moste present, and in maner handle him wher it feleth it selfe to be quickened, lightened, saued, iustified and sanctif…d.

p. 36Wherefore out of the same fountaines we must fetch our meane of prouing to confirme the Godhead of the Holy ghost.Gen. i.ii.Gen 1 Uery plaine is y^e testimonie of Moses in the history of the creacion, that the spirite of God was vppon the depthes, or vppon the vnfashioned heape: because he sheweth that not onelyonly the beautie of the worlde that is nowe to be seen is preserued by the power of the Spirite, but ere this beautie was added, the Spirite was then busied in preseruing that confused lumpe of thinges.Es. xlviii xvi.Isa 48 And that saying of Esaie cannot be cauilled against. And now Iehouah and his Spirite hath sent me. For he communicateth with the Holy ghost his chiefe power in sending of Prophetes. Whereby appeareth the diuine maiestie of the Holy ghost. But our best proufe, as I hauehave saied, shalbe by familiar vse. For that whiche the Scriptures impute vntounto it, is farre from the propertie of creatures, and suche a thing as we oure selues doe learne by assured experience of godlinesse. For he it is that being eche where poured abrode, dooeth susteine and geueth growing and life to all thinges in heauen and in earth. And by this pointe he is proued to bee none of the number of creatures, for that he is not comprehended within any boundes: but by pouring his liuely force into all thinges to breath into them life and mocion, this is the very worke of God. Moreouer if regeneracion into an incorruptible life be better and more excellent than any presente quickening: what shall we iudge of him from whose power the same procedeth? And that he is the author of regeneraciō, not by a borrowed, but by his own force, the Scripture in many places teacheth: and not of that onelyonly, but also of the immortalitie to come. Finally, as vntounto the Sonne, so vntounto him also are applied al those offices that are most of all properly belonging to the Godhead.i. Cor. ii.x i, cor, xii, x Ex, iiii, xi1 Cor 2 For he searcheth the depe secretes of God, wherwith none of al the creatures is of counsel. He geueth wisdome and skill to speake, wheras yet the Lord pronounceth to Moses that it is only his worke to do it. So by him we come to a partaking of God, so that we may fele his power as it were working life in vsus. Our iustificacion is his worke. From him is power, sanctification, truethe, grace, and what good thing soeuer maye be thoughte of, because it is the Holie ghoste onelyonly from whom procedeth all kinde of giftes. For that sentence of Paule is righte worthy to be noted. Although there be diuerse giftes, and manifolde and sondry is the distribucion of them, yet is there but one holie Spirite: because he maketh him not onelye the original or beginning, but also the author. Whiche a little after is more plainly expressed in these woordes.i, cor, xii, xi, One and the same Spirite distrybuteth all thinges as he will. For if he were not some thing subsisting in God, he woulde not attribute vntounto him choise of minde and wyll. Therefore moste euidentlye doth Paule geue to the Holie ghost diuine power, and sheweth that he is substantially resident in God.

And the Scripture it selfe, when it speaketh of hym, forbeareth not 15the name of God. For Paul hereby gathereth that we are the temple of God,i, cor, iii, xvii. and vi, xix, ii, Cor, vi xvi. because his spirite dwelleth in vsus: which thing is not lightly to be passed ouer. For wheras God so often promiseth that he wil chose vsus for a temple to himselfe, that promyse is no other way fulfylled, but by hys spirite dwelling in vsus. Surely, as Augustine very well sayeth: if we wer commaunded to make vntounto the Holy ghost a temple of timber and stone,August ad. Max iminum. Ep. lxvi because such worship is due to God onelyonly, it were a cleare argument that he is God: now therfore how much clearer is this, that we ought, not to make a temple, but our selues to be a temple for him? And the Apostle himselfe calleth vsus sometime the temple of God, sometime the tēple of the Holy ghoste, both in one meaning. And Peter reprehē ding Ananias for that he had lied to the Holy ghost,Act. v.iii. Esa. vi.ix Act. xxviii xxv.Acts 5Isa 6Acts 28 said that he lied not vntounto men but vntounto God. And where Esay bringeth in the Lord of hostes speaking, Paul teacheth that it is the Holy ghost that speaketh. Yea where commonly the Prophetes say, that the wordes whiche they vtter are the wordes of the Lord of hostes, Christ and the Apostles doe referre them to the Holy ghost. Whereby it foloweth that he is the true Iehouah that is the chiefe author of prophecies. Again where God complaineth that he was prouoked to wrath by the stubbornesse of his people, in steade of that Esay saith that his holy Spirite was greued.Esa. xliii.x. Mat. xii.xxx. Mark. iii.…. Luk. x…Isa 43Matt 12Mark 3Luke 10 Last of al, if blasphemie against the Holy ghost be not forgeuē in this world nor in the worlde to come, whereas he maye obteine pardon that hath blasphemed against the sōne: his diuine maiesti is here plainly proued, the offense or diminishment wherof is an vnpardonable crime. I dooe wittingly and of purpose omitt many testimonies that the aūcient writers hauehave vsed.…. x…xiii.v…. They hauehave thought it a maruellous mete place to allege out of Dauid: with the word of the Lorde the heauens wer stablished, and al the power of them with the spirite of his mouth, to proue that y^e world was no lesse the work of the Holy ghost than of the Sonne. But forasmuch as it is commonly vsed in the Psalmes to repete one thynge twise:Es. xi.iiii.Isa 11 & in Esay the spirite of his mouth is as much to say as his word, that reason is very weake. Therfore I thought good to touche a fewe such thinges as godly mindes might soundly rest vponupon.

16And as God hath more plainly disclosed himselfe by the comming of Christ, so is he also in the thre Persons become more familiarly knowen. But of al the testimonies lette this one suffice vsus for this present. Paule so knitteth these three together,Ep. iiii.v. God, Faith, & Baptisme, that he reasoneth from the one to the other in this maner. Because there is but one Faith, he therby sheweth that there is but one God. And because there is but one god, he therby proueth y^t there is but one Faith. Therfore if we be entred into the Faith and religion of one God by Baptysme: we must nedes thinke him the true God in whose name we ar baptised. And it is not to be douted, but that in this solemne protestacion, Christ meant to testifie that the perfect light of Faith was already deliuered, when he said:Mat. xx ….Matt 20 Baptise them in the name of the Father and of the Sonne & of the Holy ghost. For it is as much in effect as to be baptised in the name of the one god, which with perfect bryghtnesse hath appeared in y^e Father, the Sonne & the Holy ghost. Wherby is euidente that in the essence of God abide thre Persons in which the one God is knowen. And surely, forasmuch as our Fayth ought not to loke hether and thether, nor diuersly to wāder about, but to hauehave regard to y^e one God, to be applied to him, and to sticke fast in him: it is hereby easily proued, that if there be diuerse kindes of faith, there must also bee many Gods. Now wheras baptisme is a Sacrament of faith: it proueth vntounto vsus the vnitie of God, because it is but one. And herof also foloweth, that it is p. 37not lawful to be baptised but into one God, bicause we embrace y^e Faith of him, into whose name we are baptised. What meant Christe then, when he commaunded to be baptised, in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy gost, but that we ought with one Faith to beleue in the Father, Sonne, and the Holy ghost? Therfore sithe this remaineth certayn, that there is but one God, and not many, we determine that the Worde and the Spirite are nothyng els but the very selfe essence of God. And very foolishly did the Arrians prate, which confessyng the godhed of the Sonne did take from him the substance of God. And suche a like rage vexed the Macedonians, whiche woulde hauehave to be vnderstanded by the Spirite, only the gyftes of grace that are poured foorth into men. For as wisdome, vnderstandyng, prudence, fortititude, feare of God doo procede from hym: so he onelyonly is the spirite of wisedome, prudence, fortitude, and godlinesse. Yet is not he diuided accordyng to the distribution of his graces: but howe …oeuer they bee dyuersely dealt abroade,i. Cor. xii.xi.1 Cor 12 yet he remaineth one and the same, as the Apostle saithe.

Agayn, there is shewed in the Scriptures a certain distinction of the 17Father from the Woorde, and of the Worde from the Spirite. In discussyng wherof, howe greate religiousnesse and sobrietie we oughte to vse, the greatnesse of the mysterie it selfe dooth admonishe vsus. And I very well like that saying of Gregorie Nazianzene:In sermo ne …e sacro bap…ismo. I can not thynke vponupon the one, but by and by I am compassed about with the brightnesse of the thre: And I can not seuerally discerne the three, but I am sodeinly dryuen backe to one. Wherfore lette it not come in our myndes ones to imagine suche a Trinitie of Persons as may hold our thought withdrawen into seueralties, and doothe not foorthewith brynge vsus agayn to that vnitie. The names of Father, Sonne, and Holy ghost, doo proue a true distinction, that no man should thynke them to be bare names of addition, wherby God accordyng to his woorkes is diuersly entitled: but yet it is a distinction, not a diuision. The places that wee hauehave already cited, doo shewe that the Sonne hath a propretie distincte from the Father, because the Worde had not ben with God, if he hadde not ben an other thyng than the Father: neyther had he had his glorye with the Father, but beyng distinct from hym. Lykewise he doothe distinguisshe hym selfe from the Father, when he saythe, that there is an other whyche beareth hym witnesse.Iohn. v.iii …. viii.xvi.John 5 And for this purpose maketh that whiche in an other place is sayd, that the Father created all thinges by the Worde, whiche he coulde not, but beyng after a certaine maner distinct from hym. Moreouer the Father came not downe into the earth, but he that came out from the Father. The Father died not, nor roase agayne, but he that was sent by him. Neither yet did this distinction beginne at the takynge of fleshe:Iohn. i.xviii.John 1 but it is manifest that he was also before, the onelyonly begotten in the bosom of the Father. For who can abide to say, that then the Sonne entred into the bosome of the father, when he descended from heauen to take manhode vponupon hym? He was therefore before in the bosome of the Father, and enioyed his glorie with the Father.Ioh. xiiii.vi.xv.xxvi.John 14 As for the distinction of the Holye ghoste frome the Father, Christe speaketh of it when he saith, that it procedeth from the Father. And howe oft doothe he shewe it to be an other beside himself? as when he promyseth that he wyll sende an other confortoure,Ioh. xiiii.xvi.John 14 and often in other places.

18But to borow similitudes from matters of mē, to expresse the force of this distinction. I knowe not whether it be expedient. In dede the olde fathers are wont so to doo somtyme: but withall they doo confesse, that what soeuer they bryng foorth for like, doothe muche differ. For which cause I am muche afrayd to be any waye bolde, least if I bryng foorth any thyng vnfittly, it shuld geue occasion either to the malicious to cauill, or to the vnskilfull to be deceiued. Yet suche distinction as we hauehave marked to be sette out in scriptures, it is not good to hauehave left vnspokē. And that is this, that to the Father is geuen the begynnynge of woorkyng, the fountayne and spryng of all thynges: to the Sonne wysedome, counsell, and the very disposition in the doyng of thinges: to the Holy ghost is assigned power & effectual working. And although eternitie belong vntounto the Father, and eternitie to the Sonne and to y^e Holy ghost also, for as much as God coulde neuer hauehave ben without his wisdom & power, & in eternitie is not to be sought, which was fyrst or last: yet this obseruation of order is not vayne or superfluous, wherein the Father is reckened fyrst, and then of hym the Sonne, and after of them both the Holy ghost. For eueryevery mans mynde of it self enclineth to this, fyrst to consider God, then the wisedome risyng out of hym, and laste of all the power wherwith he putteth the decrees of his purpose in execution. In what sort the Sonne is said to be of the Father only, and the Holy ghoste bothe of the Father and the Sonne, is shewed in many places, but no where more playnely than in the .viii. chapiter to the Romayns, where the same Spirite is without difference somtyme called the Spirite of Christe, & somtime of him that raised vp Christ from the dead: and that not without cause. For Peter dothe also testifie that it was the Spirite of Christe wherewith the Prophetes did prophecie, where as the Scripture so often teacheth, that it was the Spirite of God the Father.

Now this distinction doth so not stand against y^e single vnitie of God, 19y^t therby we may proue that y^e Son is one God with the father, because he hath one Spirit with hym, and that the Holy Spirite is not a thyng diuers from the Father & the Son. For in eche Hypostasis is vnderstanded the whole substance, with this that eueryevery one hath his own propretie. The Father is whole in the Sonne,Ioh. xiiii.x.John 14 & the Sonne is whole in the Father, as hymselfe affirmeth. I am in the Father, and the Father is in me. And the Ecclesiasticall writers doo not graunt the one to be seuered from the other by any difference of essence.Avgust. home, de tempori. xxxviii. By these names that betoken distinction (sayth Augustin) that is ment wherby they hauehave relation one to an other, and not the very substance whereby they are all one. By whiche meanynge are the sayinges of the olde writers to bee made agree, whiche otherwise would seeme not a little to disagree. For sometyme they saye that the Father is the beginnyng of the Sonne, and somtyme that the Sonne hath bothe godhead and essence of hymselfe,De trinit…re & coll. ad pascēciū epistol. clxxvii. and is all one begynnynge with the Father. The cause of this diuersitie Augustine doothe in an other place well and planelye declare, when he sayeth: CHRIST hauynge respect to him selfe, is called God, and to his Father is called the Sonne. And agayne▪ p. 38the Father as to hymselfe is called God,Cyrillus de trinit. li.vii. idē li.iii. …ialog. Augusti. in ps. cir. & tract. in Iohā. xxxix. et psal lxviii as to his Sonne is called the Father, where hauynge respecte to the Sonne he is called the Father, he is not the Sonne: & where as to the Father he is called the Son, he is not the Father: and where he is called as to hym self the Father, and as to hymselfe the Sonne: it is all one God. Therfore when we simply speake of the Sonne: without hauyng respect to the Father, we do well and proprely say, that he is of hym selfe: and therfore we call hym but one beginnyng: but when we make mention of the relation betweene him and his Father, then we rightly make the Father the beginning of the Sonne. All the whole fifth boke of Augustine concernyng the Trinitie dooth nothyng but sette foorth this matter. And muche safer it is to reste in that relation that he speaketh of, than into suttletle pearcyng vntounto the hye mysterie to wander abroade by many vayne speculations.

Let them therfore y^t are pleased with sobrenesse, & cōtented with measure 20of Faith, shortly learne so muche as is profitable to bee knowen: that is, when we professe that we beleue in one God, vnderunder the name of God, we vnderstande the one onelyonly and single essence in whiche we comprehende thre Persons or hypostases. And therfore so oft as we doo indefinitely speake of the name of God, we meane no lesse the Sonne and the Holy ghost than the Father. But when the Sonne is ioyned to the Father, then commeth in a relation, and so we make distinction betwene y^• Persons. And because the propreties in the Persons bring an order with them, so as the beginnyng and orginall is in the Father: so ofte as mencion is made of the Father and the Son, or the Holy ghost together, the name of God is peculiarly geuen to the Father. By this meane is reteined the vnitie of the essence, and regarde is hadde to the order, whiche yet dothe minishe nothyng of the godhead of the Sonne and of the Holy ghoste. And where as we hauehave already seene that the Apostles doo affirme, that the Sonne of God is he, whom Moses and the prophetes doo testifie to be Iehouah the Lorde, we must of necessitie alwaye come to the vnitie of the essences. Wherefore it is a detestable sacrilege for vsus to call the Sonne a seuerall God from the Father, bycause the symple name of God, doothe admytte no relation, and God in respecte of hym selfe can not bee saide to be this or that. Now,i. Cor. xii.ix.1 Cor 12 that the name of Iehouah the Lorde indefinitely taken is applied to Christe, appereth by the wordes of Paul, wher he sayth: Therfore I hauehave thryse praied the Lorde, because that after he hadde receyued the aunswere of Christ. My grace is sufficient for the: he sayeth by and by, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. It is certayne that the name Lorde is there set for Iehouah, and therfore to restraine it to the person of the Mediatour were very fonde and childyshe, for somuch as it is an absolute sentence that compareth not the Father with the Sonne. And we knowe that after the accustomed maner of the Greekes, the Apostles, doo commonly sette the worde Kyrios, Lord, in stede of Iehouah. And, not to fetche an example farre of, Paule dydde in no other sense pray to the Lorde,… ii.xvi Ioel. ii.xxviii.Joel 2 than in the same sense that Peter citethe the place of Ioell: who soeuer calleth vppon the name of the Lorde shall be saued. But where this name is peculiarly geuen to the Sonne, we shall se that there is an other reason therof, when we com to a place fitte for it. Nowe it is enough to hauehave in mynde, when Paule had absolutely praied to God, he by and by bryngeth in the name of Christ. Euen so is the whole God called by Christ hymselfe the Spirite. For there is no cause agaynst it, but that the whole essence of God may bee spirituall, wherin the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy ghoste be comprehended. Whiche is very playne by the Scripture. For euen as there we heare God to be made a Spirite: so we do here the Holy ghost, for so muche as it is an Hypostasis of the whole essence, to bee called bothe God, and procedyng from God.

21But for as muche as Satan, to the ende to roote out our Faith, hath alway moued great cōtentions, partly concernyng the diuine essence of the Sonne, and of the Holy ghost, and partly cōcernyng their distinction of Persones. And as in a maner in all ages he hath stirred vp wicked spirites to trouble the true teachers in this behalfe: so at this day he trauaileth out of the olde embres to kyndle a new fyre: therfore here it is good to answere the peruerse foolishe errours of some. Hitherto it hath ben our purpose, to leade as it were by the hande those that ar willyng to learne, and not to striue hande to hande with the obstinate and contentious. But nowe the truthe which we hauehave already peasably shewed, must be reskued from the cauillations of the wicked. All be it my chiefe trauayle shall yet be applied to this ende, that they whyche geue gentill and open eares to the woord of God, may hauehave whervpon stedfastly to rest their foote. In this poynt, if any where at all in the secrete mysteries of Scripture, we ought to dispute sobrely, and with greate moderation, and to take great hede that neyther oure thought nor oure tongue procede any further than the boundes of Goddes woorde dooe extende. For howe may the mynde of man by his capacitie define the immeasurable essence of God, whiche neuer yet coulde certainly determine howe great is the body of the Son, which yet he daily seeth with his eyes? yea howe may she by her owne guidyng atteyn to discusse the substaunce of God, that can not reache to knowe her owne substaunce? Wherfore lette vsus willingly geue ouer vntounto God the knowledge of him selfe.Hila. li. pri. de Trinitate. For he onelyonly, as Hylarie saieth, is a conueniente witnesse to hym selfe, whiche is not knowen but by hymselfe. We shall geue it ouer vntounto hym, if we shall both conceiue hym to be such as he hath opened himself vntounto vsus, and shall not els where searche to knowe of hym, than by his owne worde. There are to this ende written fiue homelies of Chrysostome against the Anomei. Yet the boldnesse of Sophisters coulde not be restrained by them from bablyng vnbridledly. For they hauehave behaued them selues in this behalfe no whit more modestely than they are wonted in all other. By the vnhappye successe of whiche vndiscretion, we ought to be warned to take care that we bend our selues to trauaile in this question rather with tractable willyngnesse to learne, than with sharpnesse of witte, and neuer hauehave in our mynde eyther to searche for God any where els than in his holy Worde, or to thynke any thynge of hym, but hauyng his Word goyng before to guide vsus, or to speake any thynge but that whiche is taken out of the same Worde: The distinction that is in the one godhead of the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy ghoste, as it is very harde to knowe, so dooth it bryng more busynesse and comberance to some wittes than is expedient. Let them remembre that the myndes of men doo entre into a mase when they folowe their p. 39owne curiositie, and so let them suffer them selues to be ruled with the heauenly oracles, howe soeuer they can not atteyne the heighte of the mysterie.

To make a register of the errours, wherwith the purenesse of Faithe 22in this poynt of doctrine hath in tymes paste ben assailed, were to long and full of vnprofitable tediousnesse: and the moste parte of heretikes hauehave to attempted to ouerwhelme the glory of God with grosse dotyng errours, that they hauehave thought it enough for them to shake and trouble the vnskilfull. And from a fewe men hauehave spronge vp many sectes, wherof some doo teare in sunder the essence of God, some do confound the distinction y^t is betwene the Persons. But if we hold fast y^t which is alredy sufficiētly shewed by the Scripture, y^t the essence of the one God whiche belongeth to the Father, the Son, and the Holy ghost, is syngle and vndiuided. Agayne, that the Father by a certayne propretie differeth from the Sonne, and the Sonne from the holy ghost: we shal stop vp the gate not only against Arrius and Sabellius, but also the other olde authors of errours. But because in our tyme there be risen vp certaine phreneti…e men, as Seruetto and other like, which hauehave encombred all thinges with newe deceites: It is good in fewe wordes to discusse their falsehoodes. The name of the Trinitie was so hatefull, yea so detestable to Seruetto, that he sayde, that all the Trinitaries, as he called them, were vtterly godlesse. I omitte the foolishe wordes that he had deuised to raile withall. But of his opinions this was the sūme. That God is made Tripartite, whē it is said, that there abide thre Persons in his essence, and that this Trinitie is but a thyng imagined, because it disagreeth with the vnitie of God. In the meane tyme the Persons he would hauehave to be certaine outward conceptions of Forme, whiche are not truely subsistyng in the essence of God, but doo represente God vntounto vsus in this or that fashion. And at the beginnyng that there was in God nothyng distincte bicause ones the Worde and the Spirite were all one: but sins that Christe arose God oute of God, the Holye ghost sprong also an other God out of hym. And though sometyme he colour his follies with allegories, as when he saythe, that the eternall Worde of God was the Spirite of Christ with God, and the bright shinyng of his forme. Agayne, that the Holy ghost was the shadow of the godhed, yet afterward he bringeth the godhed of them both to nothing, affirmyng that after the rate of distribution there is bothe in the Son and in the Holy Spirite a parte of God, euen as the same Spirite in vsus, and also in wode and stones is substancially a porcion of God. What he babbleth of the Person of the Mediatour, we shall hereafter see in place conuenient. But this monstrous forged deuise, that a Persone is nothyng ells but a visible forme of the glory of God, needeth no long confutation.Ioh. i.…John 1 For where as Iohn pronounceth, that the Woorde was GOD before the Worlde was yet create, he maketh it muche differynge from a conception of Forme. But if then also, yea and from farthest Eternitie of tyme, that Woorde whyche was God was with the Father, and had his owne propre glorye with the Father, he could not be an outward or figuratiue shining: but it necessarily foloweth that he was an hypostasis that did inwardely abyde in God. And althoughe there bee no mencion made of the Spyrite, but in the Hystorye of the creation of the worlde: yet he is not there brought in as a shadowe, but an essentiall power of God, when Moses sheweth that the very vnfashioned lumpe was susteined in hym.Gen. i.ii.Gen 1 Therfore it then appeared, that the eternall Spirite was alwaies in God, when he preserued and susteyned the confused matter of heauen and earth, vntill beautie and order were added vntounto it. Surely he coulde not yet be an image or representation of God as Seruetto dreameth. But in other poyntes he is compelled more openly to disclose his wickednesse, in sayeng that God by his eternall purpose appointyng to hymselfe a visible Sonne, did by this meane shewe himselfe visible. For if that be true, there is no other godhed left vntounto Christe, but so farre as he is by the eternall decree of God ordeyned his Sonne. Moreouer he so transformeth those imagined shapes that he sticketh not to fayne newe accidentes in God. But this of all other is most abhominable, that he confusely myngleth as well the Sonne of God, as the Holye ghoste, with all creatures. For he playnely affirmeth, that there bee partes and partitions in the Essence of God, of whiche euerye portion is God. And namelye he saythe, that the Spirites of the Faithefull are coeternall and consubstanciall with God: allbeit in an other place he assigneth the substanciall Deitie, not onelyonly to the soule of man, but also to other creatures.

Out of this sinke came foorthe an other lyke monster. For certaine 23lewde men meanyng to escape the hatred and shame of the wickednesse of Seruetto, hauehave in dede confessed, that there are thre Persones, but addyng a maner howe: that the Father whiche truely and proprely is the one onelyonly God, in formyng the Son and the Holy ghost, hath powred his godhead into them. Yea they forbeare not this horrible maner of speeche, that the Father is by this marke distinguished from the Sonne and the Holy ghost, that he is the only essentiatour or maker of the essence. First they pretende this colour, that Christ is echewhere called the Sonne of God: where of they gather, that there is none other proprely God but the Father. But they mark not, that though the name of God be also common to the Sonne, yet by reason of preeminence it is sometyme gyuen to the Father onelyonly, because he is the fountayn and originall of the Deitie, and that for this purpose, to make the syngle vnitie of the essence to be therby noted. They take exception and saye: If he be truly the Sonne of God, it is inconuenient to hauehave hym reckned the Sonne of a Person. I answere that bothe are true: that is, that he is the Sonne of God, because he is the Woorde begotten of the Father before all worldes (for we come not yet to speake of the Person of the Mediatour) and yet for explications sake we oughte to hauehave regarde of the Person, that the name of God simply be not taken, but for the Father onelyonly. For if we meane none to be God but the Father, we plainly throwe downe the Sonne from the degree of God.Esa. vi.i. Ioh. xii.xii. Esa. viii.x.iii. Rom. ix.xxxiii. Esa. xlv.xxiii.Isa 6Isa 8Rom 9Isa 45 Therfore so ofte as mencion is made of the godhed, we must not admitte a comparison betwene the Sonne and the Father, as thoughe the name of God dydde belonge onelyonly to the Father. For trewely the God that appeared to Esaie was the true and onelyonly God, and yet Iohn affirmeth that the same was Christe. And he that by the mouth of Esay testified, that he should be a stumbling stone to the Iewes, was the only God: and yet Paule pronounceth that the same was Christe. He that p. 40trieth out by Esaie, I liue, and to me all knees shall bowe, is the onelyonly God:Esa. xlv xiiii. Ro. xiiii.xi. Heb. i.x. Psal. cu: xxvi: Ps. x…vii.vii.Isa 45Rom 14Heb 1Ps 10 and yet Paule expoūdeth that the same was Christ. For this purpose serue the testimonies that the Apostle reciteth: Thou O God haste laide the foundations of heauen and earth. Agayne, let all the angels of God worship him, whiche thynges belong to none, but to the onelyonly God. And yet he saith, that they are the propre titles of Christ. And this cauillation is nothyng worthe, that that is geuen to Christe, whiche is propre to God: because Christe is the shinyng brightnesse of his glory. For because in eche of these places is fet the name of Iehouah, it foloweth, that it is so sayd in respecte that he is God of hymselfe. For if he be Iehouah, it can not be denied that he is y^e same God that in an other place crieth out by Esaie:Esa. xliiii vi. Iere. x.xiIsa 44Jer 10 I, I am, and beside me there is no God. It is good also to consider that saying of Hieremie: The gods that hauehave not made the heauen and earth, let them perishe out of the earth that is vnderunder the heauen. Where as on the other side we must nedes confesse, that the Sonne of God is he, whose godhead is ofte proued in Esaie by the creation of the worlde. And howe can it be that the Creatour, whyche geueth beyng to all thynges, shall not bee of hymselfe, but borowe his beyng of an other. For who soeuer saythe that the Sonne was essentiate or made to be of his Father, denieth that he is of hym selfe. But the Holy ghost saith the contrary, namyng hym Iehouah. Nowe if we graunt that the whole essence is in the Father onelyonly, either it muste be made partable, or be taken from the Sonne, and so shal the Sonne be spoyled of his essence, and be a God only in name and title. The essence of God, if we beleue these triflers: belongeth onelyonly to the Father, for as muche as he is onelyonly God, and is the essencemaker of the Sonne. And so shall the godhed of the Sonne be an abstracte from the essence of God, or a deriuation of a parte oute of the whole. Nowe muste they nedes graunt by theyr own principle, that the holy ghost is the Spirite of the Father only. For if he be a deriuation from the fyrst essence, whiche is onelyonly propre to the Father, of right he can not be accompted the Spirite of the Sonne: whiche is confuted by the testimonie of Paul, where he maketh the Spirit common to Christ and the Father. Moreouer if the Person of the Father be wiped out of the Trinitie, wherin shall he differ from the Sonne and the Holy ghoste, but in this, that he onelyonly is God? They confesse Christ to be God, and yet they say he differeth from the Father. Agayn, there muste be some marke of difference to make that the Father be not the Sonne. They which say that marke of difference to be in the essence, doo manifestly bring the true godhead of Christe to nothynge, whiche can not be without essence, yea and that the whole essence. The Father differeth not from the Sonne, vnlesse he hauehave somethyng propre to hymselfe that is not common to the Sonne. What nowe will they fynde wherin to make him different? If the difference be in the essence, let them answere if he hauehave not communicated the same to the Sonne. But that could not be in part, for to say that he made halfe a God were wycked. Beside that by this meane they doo fowly teare in sunder the essence of God. It remaineth therefore that the essence is whole, and perfectly common to the Father and the Sonne. And if that bee true, then as touchyng the essence there is no difference of the one of them from the other. If they say y^t the Father in geuyng his essence, remaineth neuerthelesse the only God, with whom the essence abideth: then Christ shalbe a figuratiue God, and a God only in shew & in name but not in deede: because nothyng is more propre to God than to bee,Exod. v.xiii.Exod 5 accordyng to this saying: He that is, hath sent me vntounto you.

24It is easy by many places to proue that it is false whiche they holde, that so ofte as there is in scripture mencion made absolutely of God, none is ment therby but the Father. And in those places that they them selues doo alledge, they fowly bewray their owne want of consideration, because there is also sette the name of the Sonne. Wherby appeareth, that the name of God is there relatiuely takē, and therfore restrained to the Person of the Father. And their obiection where they say, If the Father were not only the true God, he should himselfe be his owne Father, is answered with one worde. It is not inconuenient for degree and orders sake, that he be peculiarly called GOD, whiche hath not only of hym selfe begotten his wisedome, but also is the God of the Mediatour, as in place fitte for it, I will more largely declare. For sythe Christ was openly shewed in the fleshe, he is called the Sonne of God, not onelyonly in respect that he was the eternall Worde before all worldes begotten of the Father: but also because he tooke vponupon hym the Person and office of the Mediatour to ioyne vsus vntounto God. And because they do so boldly exclude the Sonne from the honour of God, I would fayne knowe whether the Sonne when he pronounceth, that none is good but God,Mat. xix.xvii.Matt 19 doo take goodnesse from himselfe? I dooe not speake of his humaine nature, least perhappes they shuld take exception, and say, that what soeuer goodnesse was in it, it came of free gyft. I aske whether the eternall Word of God be good or no? If they say nay, then we hold their vngodlinesse sufficiētly cōuinced: in sayeng yea, they cōfound themselues. But where as at the first sight, Christe semeth to put from hymselfe the name of Good, that doothe the more confirme oure meanyng. For sithe it is the singular title of God alone, forasmuche as he was after the common maner saluted by the name of Good, in refusing false honour, he did admonish them that the goodnesse wherin he excelled, was the goodnesse that God hathe. I aske also, where Paule affirmeth that only God is immortall,i. Tim. i.xvii.1 Tim 1 wise, and true, whether by these wordes Christe be brought into the numbre of men mortall, foolishe, and false? Shall not he then be immortall, that from the begynnyng was lyfe to geue immortalitie to angels? Shall not he bee wise that is the eternall wisedome of God? Shall not the trueth it selfe be true? I aske furthermore,Philip. ….x. whether they thynke that Christe ought to be worshipped or no? For he claimeth this vntounto hymselfe, to hauehave all knees bowe before hym: it foloweth that he is the God whiche dyd in the lawe forbyd any other to be worshipped but himselfe. If they will hauehave that meant of the Father onelyonly whiche is spoken in Esaie: I am, and none but I: this testimonie I tourne against theim selues, for as muche as we see, that whatsoeuer pertaineth to God is geuen to Christe.Esa. xliiii vi.Isa 44 And their cauillation hath no place, that Christe was exalted in the fleshe, wherein he had bene abased, and that in respecte of the fleshe, all authoritie is geuen hym in heauen and in earthe: because althoughe the maiestie of Kyng and Iudge extende to the whole Person of the Mediatour, yet p. 41if he had not been God openly shewed in fleshe, he coulde not hauehave been auaunced to suche heighth, but that God shoulde hauehave disagreed with himselfe. But thys controuersye Paule doeth well take away, teaching that he was egall wyth God before that he dyd abase hymselfe vnderunder the shape of a seruaunte.Ph. ii.vii Nowe howe coulde thys equalitie hauehave stande together, vnlesse he hadde been the same God whoes name is Iah and Iehouah: that rydeth vppon the Cherubin, that is kynge of all the earthe and Lorde of the worldes? Nowe howesoeuer they babble agaynste it, it canne not bee taken from Chryste whiche Esaie sayeth in an other place:Esa. xxv.ix.Isa 25 He, he, is our GOD, for hym we hauehave wayted, whereas in these woordes he describeth the comming of GOD the redemer, not onelye that shoulde bryng home the people from the exyle of Babylon, but also fullye in all pointes restore the churche. And with their other cauillation they nothynge preuayle, in sayinge, that Chryste was God in hys Father. For thoughe we confesse that in respecte of order and degree the begynning of the Godheade is in the Father, yet we saye that it is a detestable inuentyon to saye that the essence is onelye proper to the Father, as thoughe he were the onelye Godmaker of the Sonne. For by thys meanes eyther he shoulde hauehave moe essence than one, or ells they call Chryste God onelyonly in tittle and imaginacion. If they graunte that Chryste is God, but nexte after the Father, then shall the essence bee in hym begotten and fashioned, whiche in the Father is vnbegotten and vnfashyoned. I knowe that many quicke nosed men doe laughe at thys that we gather the distinction of Persons oute of the wordes of Moses, where he bryngeth in God speakyng thus: Lette vsus make manne after oure image. But yet the Godly readers doe see howe vaynly and fondely Moses shoulde bryng in thys as a talke of dyuerse together,Gene. i.xxvi.Gen 1 if there were not in God moe Persons than one. Nowe certayne is it, that they whom the Father spake vntounto, wer vncreate: but nothing is vncreate but God himselfe yea the one onelyonly God. Nowe therefore vnlesse they graunte that the power of creating was common, and the authoritie of commaunding common, to the Father, the Sonne, and the Holy ghoste: it shall folowe that God did not inwardly thus speake to himselfe, but directed his speche to other forein woorke menne. Finallie one place shall easilie answere two of their obiections.Iohn. iiii.xxiiii.John 4 For where as Christe himselfe pronounceth that GOD is a Spirite, this were not conueniente to be restrained to the Father onelyonly, as if the Woorde himselfe were not of spirituall nature. If then the name of Spirite doeth as well agree with the Sonne as with the Father, I gather that the Sonne is also comprehended vnderunder the indefynite name of GOD. But he addeth by and by after that, none are allowed for good worshippers of the Father, but they that worshyppe hym in Spirite and trueth, where vppon foloweth an other thyng, because Chryste doeth vnderunder a hed execute the office of a teacher, he doeth geue the name of GOD to the Father, not to the entente to destroye his owne Godhead, but by degrees to lyfte vsus vp vntounto it.

25But in this they are deceiued, that they dreame of certaine vndiuided singular thinges wherof eche hauehave a part of the essence. But by the Scriptures we teache, that there is but one essentially God, and therefore that the essence as well of the Sonne as of the Holy ghost is vnbegotten. But forsomuch as the Father is in order firste, and hath of himselfe begotten his wisedome, therfore rightfully as is aboue sayed, he is counted the original and fountaine of al the Godhead. So God indefinitely spoken, is vnbegotten, and the Father also in respecte of Person is vnbegotten. And foolishly they thinke that they gather, that by oure meaning is made a quaternitie, because fasly and cauillouslye they ascrybe vntounto vsus a deuise of their owne brayne, as though we dyd faine that by deriuacion there come three Persons out of one essence: wheras it is euident by our wrytinges that we do not drawe the Persons out of the essence, but although they be abiding in the essence we make a distinction betwene them. If the Persons were seuered from the essence, then paraduenture their reason were like to be true. But by that meane it shoulde be a Trinitie of Goddes and not of Persons, which one God conteineth in hym. So is their fonde question answered, whether the essence doe mete to make vp the Trinitie, as thoughe we did imagine that there descende three Goddes oute of it. And thys exception groweth of lyke foolyshenesse where they saye, that then the Trinitie shoulde be withoute God. For though it mete not to make vp the distinction as a parte or a member, yet neither are the Persons withoute it nor oute of it. Because the Father if he were not God coulde not be the Father, and the Sonne is none otherwyse the Sonne but because he is God. We saye therefore, that the Godheade is absolutely of it selfe. Whereby we graunte that the Sonne in so muche as he is God is of hymselfe withoute respecte of hys Person, but in so muche as he is the Sonne, we saye that he is of the Father. So his essence is wythoute beginning, but the beginning of his Person is God hymselfe. And the true teaching writers that in olde tyme hauehave spoken of the Trinitie, hauehave onelyonly applyed thys name to the Persons, for somuche as it were not onelyonly an absurde error but also a grosse vngodlinesse to comprehende the essence in the distinction. For they that will hauehave these three to mete, the essence, the Sonne and the Holy ghoste, it is playne that they dooe destroye the essence of the Sonne and the Holy ghoste, for ells the partes ioyned together would fall in sonder, whiche is a fault in eueryevery distinction. Finally if the Father and the Sonne were Synonymes or seuerall names signifying one thyng, so the Father shoulde be the Godmaker and nothyng shoulde remayne in the Sonne but a shadowe, and the Trinitie should be nothyng ells, but the ioyning of one God with two creatures.

Where as they obiecte, that if Chryste bee properly God, he is 26not ryghtfullye called the Sonne, to that we hauehave already answered, that because in suche places there is a comparyson made of the one Personne to the other, the name of God is not there indefinitelye taken, but restrayned to the Father onelye, in so muche as he is the beginning of the Godhead, not in makynge of essence as the madde menne dooe fondlye imagyne, but in respecte of p. 42order. In this meaning is cōstrued that saying of Christ to the Father: this is the eternal life, that men beleue in the the one true God, and Iesus Chryste whom thou hast sente.Ioh. xvii, iii.John 17 For speaking in the Person of the Mediator, he kepeth the degree that is meane betwene God and men: and yet is not his maiestie thereby diminished. For thoughe he abaced hymselfe, yet he lefte not with the Father his glory that was hidden before the world. So the Apostle in the seconde Chapter to the Hebrues, though he confesseth that Christ for a short time was abaced beneth the Angels, yet he stycketh not to affirme withall, that he is the same eternall God that founded the earth. We must therfore holde, that so oft as Chryste in the Person of the Mediator speaketh to the Father, vnderunder thys name of God is comprehended the Godhead whyche is hys also. So when he sayed to the Apostles:Ioh. xvi.vii.John 16 it is profitable that I go vp to the Father, because the Father is greater. He geueth not vntounto himselfe only the seconde degree of Godhead to be as touchyng hys eternal essence inferior to the Father, but because hauyng obteined the heauēly glory, he gathereth together the faythfull to the partakyng of it. He setteth his Father in the hier degree, in so muche as the gloryous perfection of brightnesse that appeareth in heauen, differeth from that measure of glory that was seen in him being clothed with fleshe. After like maner in an other place, Paule sayeth: that Chryste shall yelde vp the kyngdome to God and hys Father,i. Cor. xv, xxiiii.1 Cor 15 that God maye be all in all. There is nothyng more absurde than to take awaye eternall contynuaunce frō the Godhead of Chryste. If he shall neuer cesse to be the Sonne of God, but shall alwaye remayne the same that he was from the beginning, it foloweth that vnderunder the name of the Father is comprehended the one essence that is common to them both. And surely therefore did Chryste descende vntounto vsus, that lifting vsus vp vntounto hys Father, he might also lift vsus vp vntounto hymselfe, inasmuch as he is all one with his father. It is therefore neyther lawfull nor ryghte so exclusiuely to restrayne the name of God to the Father,Iohn. i.i.John 1 as to take it from y^e Sonne. For, Ihon doth for thys cause affirme that he is true God, that no man shoulde thynke that he resteth in a seconde degree of Godhead beneth hys Father. And I maruell what these framers of new Goddes do meane, that whyle they confesse Chryste to be true God, yet they forth with exclude hym from the Godhead of hys Father. As thoughe there coulde any be a true God but he that is the one God, or as thoughe the Godhead poured from one to an other, be not a certayne newe forged imaginacion.

Whereas they heape vp many places out of Ireneus, where he affirmeth 27that the Father of Chryste is the onelyonly and eternall God of Israel: that is eyther done of a shamefull ignoraunce, or of an extreme wyckednesse. For they oughte to hauehave considered, that then the holye manne had to doe in disputacion with those phrentyke menne, that denyed that the Father of Chryste was the same God that in olde time spake by Moses and the Prophetes, but that he was I wote not what imagined thyng broughte oute of the corrupcion of the worlde. Therefore he altogether trauayleth in thys poynte, to make it playne that there is no other God preached of in the Scripture but the father of Christe, and that it is amisse to deuise any other, and therfore it is no maruell if he so ofte conclude that there was no other God of Israel, but he that was spoken of by Chryste and the Apostles. And in like manner nowe, whereas we are to stande agaynste an other sorte of error, we maye truely saye that the God whiche in olde time appeared to the Fathers, was none other but Christe. But if any manne obiecte that it was the Father, oure aunswere is in redinesse, that when we striue to defende the Godhead of the Sonne, we exclude not the Father. If the readers take hede to thys purpose of Ireneus, all that contention shall cesse. And also by the syxte Chapter of the thirde booke, this whole strife is ended, where the good manne standeth all vppon this pointe, to proue that he whiche is in Scripture absolutely and indefinitely called God: is verelye the one onelyonly God, and that Christ is absolutely called God. Lette vsus remember that this was the principall pointe whereupon stode all hys disputacion, as by the whole processe thereof doeth appeare: and specially the .xlvi. Chapter of the seconde booke, that he is not called the Father by darke similitude or parable, whiche is not very God in dede. Moreouer in an other place he sayeth, that as well the Sonne as the Father were iointly called God by the Prophetes and Apostles.Lib. iii. cap. ix. Afterwarde he defineth howe Christe whiche is Lorde of all, and king, and God, and iudge, receiued power from him whyche is the God of all,Cap. xii eius. lib, Cap. xvi. eius. lib. that is to saye in respecte of his subiection, because he was humbled euen to the death of the crosse. And a little after he affirmeth, that the Sonne is the maker of heauen and earth, whiche gaue the lawe by the hande of Moses and appeared to the Fathers. Nowe if any manne doe prate that wyth Ireneus onelyonly the Father is the God of Israel, I will turne agayne vponupon hym that whiche the same writer playnly teacheth, that Christe is all one and the same: as also he applyeth vntounto hym the prophecie of Habacuc.Ibid. ca. xviii: &, xxiii, God shall come oute of the South. To the same purpose serueth that whiche is red in the. ix. Chapter of the fourth booke. Chryste hymselfe therfore with the Father is the God of the lyuinge. And in the. xii. Chapter of the same booke he expoundeth that Abraham beleued God, because Chryste is the maker of heauen and earth and the onelyonly God.

18And wyth no more trueth dooe they brynge in Tertulliane for theyr defender. For thoughe he be roughe sometime and crabbed in hys manner of speache, yet doeth he playnlye teache the summe of that doctryne that we defende. That is to saye, whereas he is the one GOD, yet by disposicion and order he is hys Woorde: that there is but one GOD in vnitie of substaunce, and yet that the same vnitie by misterie of orderly distribution is disposed into Trinitie, that there are three, not in state, but in degree, not in substaunce, but in forme: not in power, but in order. He sayeth that he defendeth the Sonne to bee a seconde nexte to the Father, but he meaneth hym to be none other than the Father, but by way of distinction. In some places he sayeth that the Sonne is visible. But when he hath reasoned on both partes he defyneth that he is inuisible in so muche as he is the Worde.

p. 43Finally where he affirmeth that the Father is determined in his owne person, he proueth himselfe farre from that error which we confute. And though he doth acknowledge none other God but the Father, yet in the next pece of his writing expoūding himselfe, he saith, that he speaketh not exclusiuely in respect of the Sonne, because he denieth that the Sonne is any other God beside the Father, and that therfore their sole gouernement is not broken by distincion of Person. And by the perpetual course of his purpose it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he disputeth against Praxeas, y^t though God be distinguished into three persons, yet are there not made many gods nor the vnitie torne in sonder. And because by the imaginacion of Praxeas Chryste coulde not be God, but he must also be the Father, therefore he somuche laboureth about the distincion. Wheras he calleth the Worde and the Spirite a porcion of the whole: although it be a hard kinde of speache, yet is it excusable, because it is not referred to the substaunce, but onelyonly sheweth the disposicion and order that belongeth onelyonly to the Persons, as Tertullian hymselfe witnesseth. And herof hangeth that. Now many Persons thinkest thou there are, O moste frowarde Praxeas, but euen so many as there be names? And so a little after that, they maye beleue the Father and the Sonne eche in their names and persons. Hereby I thynke may be sufficiently confuted their impudency that seke to begyle the simple with color of Tertullians authoritie.

And surely whosoeuer shal diligently compare together y^e writinges 29of the olde authors, shal find no other thyng in Ireneus, than y^t whiche hath bentaught by other that came after. Iustine is one of the auncientest, and he in al thynges doeth agree wyth vsus. Yet let them obiect that he as the rest do, calleth the Father of Christ the onelyonly God. The same thyng doth Hilary teache, yea and speaketh more hardely, that the eternitie is in the Father. But doth he that to take away the essence of God from the Sonne? And yet is he altogether in defense of the same Fayth that we folow. Yet are they not ashamed to picke out certaine mangled sentences wherby they would perswade that Hilarye is a Patrone of their error. Where they bryng in Ignatius: if they will hauehave that to bee of any authoritie, let them proue that the Apostles made a law for lent and suche lyke corruptions of religion. Nothing is more vnsauery than those fonde trifles that are publyshed vnderunder the name of Ignatius. Wherefore their impudence is so muche lesse tolerable that disguise themselues wyth suche visers to deceiue. Moreouer the consent of the aunciente Fathers is plainly perceiued by thys, that at the counsell of Nice, Arrius neuer durst allege for hymselfe the authoritie of any one allowed wryter. And none of the Grekes or Latines doeth excuse hymselfe and saye, that he dissenteth from them that were before. It nedeth not to be spoken howe Augustine, whom those losells do moste hate, hath diligently searched the writinges of them all, and how reuerently he did embrace them. Truely euen in matters of leaste weighte he vseth to shewe what compelleth hym to dissent from them. And in thys matter, if he hauehave red any thing doubtfull or darke in other, he hydeth it not. But the doctryne that these menne striue agaynste, he taketh it as confessed, that from the farthest time of antiquitie it hath ben without controuersie receiued. And by one worde it appeareth that he was not ignorant what other had taught before hym, where he saieth that in the Father is vnitie, in the first boke of Christian doctryne, wyll they say that he then forgate hymselfe? But in an other place he purgeth himselfe from suche reproch, where he calleth the Father the beginning of the whole Godhead, because he is of none: consideryng in dede wisely that the name of God is specially ascrybed to the Father, because if the beginning should not be reckened at hym, the single vnitie of God cānot be conceiued. By this I trust the godly reder wil perceiue that al the cauillacions are confuted wherwyth Satan hath hetherto attempted to peruert or darken the pure truth of doctryne. Finallye I trust that the whole summe of doctryne in this point is fully declared, if the readers will temper them of curiositie, and not more gredely than mete is seke for combersome and entangled disputacions. For I take not in hande to please them, that do delite in an vntemperate desyre of speculacion. Truely I hauehave omitted nothing of suttle purpose that I thought to make agaynst me. But whyle I study to edify the churche, I thought it best, to leaue many thinges vntouched whiche both smallye profited, and would greue the readers with superfluous rediousnesse. For to what purpose were it to dispute, whether the father do alway beget? Forasmuch as it is folly to faine a continual acte of begetting, sith it is euidente that from eternitie there hauehave ben thre Persons in God.