Selected quad for the lemma: diversity_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
diversity_n	divine_a	nature_n	unity_n	374	5	10.1849	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A15738	Sermons vpon a part of the first chap. of the Gospell of S. Iohn. Preached by Antony Wotton, in the parish church of Alhallowes Barking in London, and now by him published	Wotton, Anthony, 1561?-1626.	1609 (1609)	STC 26008; ESTC S120315	346,604	476

which is then should not bee God If you say with Arius that hee was created you deny that the beginning of all creation is truely described by Moses when he saith g Gen. 1. 1. In the beginning God created heauen and earth For if that you say bee true the most excellent part of the creation was already past namely the making of him by whom all these things afterward were created Who taught this strange Diuinity Where is any such thing recorded in any part of Scripture Who is so shamelesse as to say he hath it by reuelation Who so senselesse as to beleeue him that will say so This is our wisedome to know what it hath pleased God to reueale to vs in the Scripture either expresly or by consequence and to accompt nothing else a matter necessary to bee beleeued So then when we read or heare that our Sauiour was with God wee learne thereby that hee is himselfe God For what can be bee but God that had his being before and without all creation The word perhaps troubles thee because he is said to haue beene with God and therefore as it may seeme not God but an other An other Thou saiest well h Tertullian contra Praxeā cap. 8. For hee is indeede in person as I aunswered once before another But where thou saiest not God thou ●rt deceiued vnlesse by God thou vnderstand the person of the Father VVith God signifies distinction of person not diuersitie of Nature Therefore i some learned Diuines by with thinke the holy Ghost meant to note his coniunction with Hilar. de Triit lib. 2. God the Father whereby they are one in vnitie of the same Diuine substance To which also they apply that which followeth in this Chapter where k Iohn 1. 18. The onely begotten Sonne is said to bee in the bosome of the Father and that l Ioh. 14. 10. 11 Chapter 14. I am in the Father and the Father in me yea m Epiphan ●aeres 93. saith one He is so with God that hee is in the substance of God and his very nature Wherfore if at any time thou beest disquieted by the word with as if it ●mplied some difference betwixt God and the Word remember that God signifies the person of the Father ●rom whom the Sonne is truly and really distinguisht ●et not by the nature of his Godhead which is one in both but by the property of his being the Sonne in which the Father and hee are alwayes not one but two ●he one the Father the other the Sonne And this last point concerning our Sauiour Christs person n Tertullian contra Praxeā cap. 12. is manifestly vndoubtedly prooued by this part of the verse For it cannot bee imagined that any thing beeing in all respects one and the same should bee saide to bee with it selfe or in it selfe The word was with God If there be no distinction betwixt the word God how can it be conceiued that the word was with God I shall neede to spend the lesse time and paines in this matter because none but o August de haer cap. 4. the Sabellians euer made question of it They deceiued themselues and other men with an vnlikely fancy against euidence of Scripture that God was but one person called in diuers respects sometimes the Father sometimes the Sonne sometimes the holy Ghost But what respect can make this speech reasonable if there be but one person in the Godhead Let vs consider the point a little better Dauid was in regard of his gouernment a king in respect of his sonne Salomon a father in relation to his wife Bersheba an husband for his generall nature a man May I say of him because of these diuers respects that the father of Saelomon was with Dauid or with the man meaning Dauid Would not a man laugh at the absurditie of such a speech It cannot be then but that hee which was with God was really distinct or was truely and indeed another from him with whom hee was No respect will free the speech from a iust imputation of absurditie if the partie spoken of bee one and the same as well for person as for nature I reserue the farder handling of this matter till I come to the end of the verse following where I purpose if it please God to deliuer the doctrine of the holy Trinitie It may also farder be gathered that the Euangelist in saying The word was with God would haue vs to vnderstand that he p Gal. 4. 4. which in the fulnesse of time appointed by God tooke flesh of the Virgin Mary was till that time with God though vnseene and vnknowen to the world not as if he were not there still for euen while he was here vpon the earth he was also at the same time continually in heauen q Ioh. 3. 13. 17. 23. The Sonne of man which is in heauen and I will that they be where I am but because he came into the world where before he had not beene in the nature of man Heereto belongeth that which is other-where written by the r 1. Iohn 1. 2. 3. same Saint Iohn VVee declare vnto you the eternall life which was with Father and was made manifest to vs. Hee was with the Father from euerlasting he appeared in the world at the appointed time So is he now againe with God because he is no longer visible on earth as sometimes he was We may also adde hereunto that ſ Ambros de incarna domini Greg. Nysten de fide ad Simplic Rupertus a● hunc locum Cyril Hieorosol Cateches 11. this being with the Father implies the glory he had and hath with him as if he should haue said The word which was in the beginning was at the right hand of God in the glory of the Father equall to the Father Why seeke you the Creator amongst the Creatures If you desire to know where the VVord was consider that he was at the right hand of God the Father partaker of that glory which the Lord neither will nor can giue to any which is not the same God with him But of this enough Let vs come to the last part of the verse And the VVord was God or as the Greeke words lie God was the VVord but our tongue will hardly beare that kind of speech vnlesse the sense be altred For if you say God was the VVord an English man will conceiue that you tell him what God was and not what the Word was The Greeke and Latine may well beare such placing of the words the English will not yet perhaps it had beene plainer euen in the Greeke to haue set the words in order as the sense of them was intended and to haue said The word was God But the Euangelist as I noted once before vpon occasion followed an elegancie of speech which had bin lost if he had kept the naturall order of the words In the beginning was the