that ye purposed rather to persecute Chryst then to prosecute the truth As they do myghtelye proue his humanitie so do these necessaryly and strongly declare his deuinitie And wyll ye be perswaded in th one and not in the thother If one force efficacye and vertue be of bothe why wyll ye not admyt both If one Scrypture beare wytnes of both why wyl ye not teache both If one Christ be authour of both why wyll ye not beleue bothe Admytte teache beleue both or one Chryst wyll condemne you in both for beleuinge th one in not beleuing and for not beleuing thother in beleuiÌ„g Arri. THE nature deuine is single comunicable to no creature coÌ„prehensible of no creat vnderstaÌ„ding explicable with no speche But as Paul saith in the fyrst to the Romans by the visible structure of the worlde we deprehende the invisible power sapience and goodnes of God c. Proct ALl this is true and Godlye but applyed to an vntrue and vngodly ende Therefore I canne finde nothynge amysse here in but youre intent whiche is wycked Ye wold hereby emproue Chryst his deuinitye but it wyll not frame with you To contende that Chryst hath not the deuine nature in hiÌ„ because the same nature is single communicable to no creature and so forthe Non sani esse hominis non sanus iuret orestes .i. A mad man might swere that it were no wise mans part The reason is bycause he was God and maÌ„ and had in hym both that single nature which is coÌ„munycable to no creature which is incomprehensible explycable with no speche c. And also the nature of man vnlike to the other in all the propryeties ye haue rehersed hauing therfore both natures in him yf by the one your senses might comprehende hym to be a coÌ„prehensible creature as man it foloweth not by that that he had not the other in him by which he is God incomprehensible for the scriptures ar manifest that he had both in him As we haue tofore sufficiently declared And where you saye that the deuine nature is communicable to no creature it can not be denyed Neither can ye fasten the contrary vpon vs because we beleue Christ to be bothe God man and to haue in him the natures of both For albeit he true God toke on him true maÌ„ to th end he one myght be both And beynge bothe is but one person and in the same but one Christ yet are not the two natures made one or in anye poynt confouÌ„ded or mixt altered or chanÌ„ged from thier first condicion state them not coÌ„municatynge or participatynge with thother in anye consideracioÌ„ The word was made flesh sayth s Ihon He meaned not that the word was turned into flesh or that the worde and the flesh were made one in substance but that the word was made flesh that is to say the worde tooke vnto it the very nature of man wholly perfectly that where before he was but the worde and the sonne of God only nowe he myght be man and the sonne of man also That phrase of S. Iohn may be vnderstanded y the lyke vsed of S. Paule where he sayth Christus pro nobis factê° est maledictus Christ was notte in deede the same thynge Miledictum but because he tooke vpon him MaledictuÌ„ for our sakes therfore it is sayde Factus est maledictum Euen so in the lyke forme it is saide in Iohn Verbum caro factum est because Christ beyng that worde vouchsafed for our sakes to put on him our nature so became man he receaued the shape of seruaunt vpon him which he had not but he left not the shape of God therfore which he had he was the word the worde was made man Thus the worde and man concurryng and meetyng togither one ê‘son is made and in the same one Christ hauyng in him .ii. distinct dyuers natures yet but one person whiche natures tho they be vnited togyther in him and meete in person of his Godhed yet are they not so vnited thei do not so meete that they be mingled confounded togyther as water wyne leuen dough th one beyng altered and confouÌ„ded into with thothers substaunce But these Natures in Christe remayne togyther inconfusibiliter sayth S. Austen That is inconfusely and vnmixt nor altered chaunged or immuted in anye one iote of their first proper state force or vertue How may this be ye wyll say that the deuine nature the nature of man coulde be vnited togyther in one Christ to one person th one not coÌ„municate or perticipate with thothers substance I can not teache you tunderstande howe but ye may learne by your selfe howe to beleue it And therfore S. AusTen byddeth you to aske your selfe how your selfe but one man can haue in your selfe .ii. dyuers and sundry natures inconfusely existynge as the soule the bodye Therfore the nature of God the nature of man at vnited conglutinate togyther in one Christ and to one persone of the same Christê Godhead after a mistical ineffable inexplicable wise eche nature notwithstandynge that vnion that conglutinacioÌ„ stil remainyng in the integritie and perfectioÌ„ as before that vnion or conglutinacion it was Of which vnion altho Origen coÌ„fesseth that no similitude proper fear inough caÌ„ be brought yet he compareth the same too yron which is fyred and inflamed saieng As the fyre doth penetrate the yron and of euery syde is mixed vnto it so the worde sayth he receauynge humane nature shyneth in the same throughout and in euery parte And the humane nature enkendled as ye may say with the lyght of the same is vnited vnto the word And as the yron is not altered into the nature of the fyre or the fyre into the nature of yron so neither is the deuine nature turned into the humane nature nor the humane nature conuerted into the deuine nature Thus the deuine nature notwithstandyng this personall vnion remaineth styl incoÌ„municable single incomprehensible and inexplicable touchynge the incomprehensibilitie wherof and inexplicabilitie I haue sayde ynough to fore The same deuine nature is called simplex in our tonge single because in it is no diuersite variacioÌ„ or multitude either of partes or Accidentes or of anye kynde of formes or fascions but the same is pure sincere vniforme euer lyke the same of one sort vnmixt not diuers not mutable in any condicion This is the vnderstanding of the worde simplex which ye vse Now after ye come in with a new fyue egges to aggruate the mater how that it followeth not that he is God because he is called by the name of God somtyme in the scripture but neither barell better hrryng Arri. WHERE IT IS BY the scriptures euident that there is one god as in the .vi. of Deut. Your God is one God yet the vocable is transferred to other and therfore it is written in the .lxxxi. Psalme God stode in the sinagoge of gods which
declaryng the manhed of Christ haue not aswell alleaged one of so many manifest places euery where in the scripture to be seene that necessarilye proue Christis deuinitie It appeareth that ye haue ouerseene the whole body of the new Testament therfore ye can not pretende for your excuse that ye reade them not But ye prefixed before hande with youre selfe what ye wolde do And so ye reade the scriptures notte thereby to instructe you what ye shulde do but therthence to embesell matter by violent wresting to supporte and vpholde you in that which ye wolde do And after a preposterous ordre forcyng the rule of Gods worde to agree to your folish fansyes wicked purposes And not framing conforming your selfe to it Ye haue mo felowes I graunt in this behalfe yea so many that if ye wer blyndfold ye might easely fynd out as good as your selfe thereat euery where almost yet your falt is not the lesse for that the feloship is so great Your wyse reason that ye make nowe is thus That nature whiche is subiect to humane passioÌ„s infirmities is neither god ne any part of the deuine esseÌ„ce But by the Scriptures it is manifest that Christ was subiect to suche infirmities as hungre thyrst feare ce Ergo Chtist was not GOD Well concluded and clearkely In deede that the nature subiecte to any infirmities and passions is or God or any parte of God it were extreme folye to thynke mere impietie to perswade other But to beleue perswade other that Iesus Christ is not therfore true God because he suffered suche affectes and passions euen the same whiche ye haue inducretely rifeled togyther on a heapeâ— it were intollerable folyshnesse and more thaÌ„ Iudaical impietie I haue sayde and now I say agayne that by the Scriptures Christ was true God and man hauyng in him both natures as well the deuine as the humane nature vnited knytte togyther to the persone of his godhed miraculouslye I haue also tofore said that as he tooke on him the nature of man so dyd he receaue the affectes infirmities incident and naturall to the same As with the fleshe th one parte of his humanitie hungry thyrst werynesse mortalitie c. with the soule thother part of his humanitie anxietie trouble and feare with other the lyke I deuye not therfore that Christ suffered suche passions as ye tomble togyther but in consideracion onlye of the humane nature which he receaued and as man beynge notwithstandyng true God and hauyng in him the true Godhead whiche was not at any tyme passible was nether rent ne torue was not subiect to hungre thirst colde heate myrth or sadnes c. And altho he was omnipotent equall to God the father in all power by his deuinitie yet he wold vse such obedieÌ„ce toward his father suche mercy toward vs that beynge very god he refused not for contentacioÌ„ of th one reconsiliactoÌ„ of the other to put on our vile nature and in the same to suffre all persecution troble affliction and finally most cruell death For it was decent and meete saith â— Austen That a mediator betwene god man shuld haue in him somthyng lyke vnto God somthyng lyke vnto man ne in vtroque hominibus similis longe esset a Deo aut in vtroque Deo similis longe esset ab hominibus ita mediator non esset Lest saith he being like in both to men he shuld be farre from God or in both like vnto god he shuld be farre from men so he coulde be no mediator And therfore beynge true God with God he wolde be made maÌ„ emongest men Ad pascâ— tium epistola 174 NoÌ„ mutaÌ„do quod etat sed assumeÌ„do quod noÌ„ erat sayth S. Austen Not by dischargyng or chauÌ„gyng that which he had but by takyng vnto him that which he had not And so became a mercifull mediator berwyxte his Father and vs. Therfore as where we reade in the scriptures that Christ dyd anye thyng that was for God to do only it foloweth not that he was not man therfore So agayn wher we fynde that he dyd hungre thirst labour praye wepte and slepte c we may neyther conclude that he was not God by that for he was God and man both yet was he not .ii. but i. And he one was perfect God and perfect man perfectly absolutely hauyng in him selfe bothe Natures with their propertyes vnited to the person of his godhead by reason of which personal vnioÌ„ many thinges confusely and without respecte had to the proprieties of the natures are spoken in the Scriptures of hym whiche can not agree vnto hym but in consideracion of his Godheade Lâ—kewyse many thynges in many places are spoken of him which can not be applyed vnto him but in coÌ„sideracion of his manhed only Exaumple of the firste wee haue euery where at hande as that in Iohan where he sayth No man ascendeth iinto heauen but the Sonne of man which is in heauen Christ was not in heauen at that tyme accordyng to his humanitie it is therefore to be vnderstanded that he was in heuen then accordyng to his deuinitie by which he is euery where And of the other parte is that whiche s Paule writeth So God loued the worlde yâ— he deliuered his only begotten sun to deth but accordiÌ„g to yâ— flesh which he had receaued neither is he called the only begotten sun of God but in coÌ„sideracioÌ„ of yâ— deuine nature which was in hiÌ„ yea this name Christ is a terme of humane nature for he was not anointed with grace touchiÌ„g his deuinitie no nor touchyng the flesh whiche he dyd beare but only according to the soule the one the better parte of his humanitie Where as ye say therfore that we make God of one parte myghty and omnipoteÌ„t of thother part weake impotent yea truly in dyuers consideracions respectes if ye meane of God the second persone the scriptures teching vs so to do as ye haue harde therfore it is neither madnes to thynke it nor impietie to teache in other as you affirme that it is but muche is your madnesse and great is your impietie if ye do not thynke beleue the same with vs. By reason of that personal vnion of the .ii. natures in hym these proposicions be true in fundrye respectes God is euery where God dyed God desceÌ„ded into hell All three true if thei be ment by God the second person of yâ— deitie Iesus Christ who very god man is euery where accordiÌ„g to his godhead who very God maÌ„ dyed in consieracioÌ„ of his flesh who very God and man descended into hell but accordyng to the soule only the bodye lyenge dead in the sepulchre Thus in diuers and sundry consideracions ye see we may truly and catholikely say that God dyed with other the lyke phrases As God is impotent and weak was ye bring it Thynke and beleue therefore and teache not the
the societie or feloweshyppe with the same onely the two natures in hiÌ„ are vnited to the person of his Godhead inconfusely by a miraculous vnion as at large I haue tofore declared And the text folowynge tho ye force and drawe it neuer so muche Yet wyll it not folowe that waye as ye wolde haue it He dwelt amongst vs as man Igraunt he was full of grace and truthe I denye notte The style in deede folowynge in Iohn declareth no lesse but what foloweth of yours therupon verely that ye wold haue him not God but man only wel disposed to the loue of God and the obseruacion of the lawe But the style folowing taught ye not to conclude so which if ye wold frame your blynde fansye to folowe nor force the same to folow your mad brayne ye shulde then folowe the better and sure guyde and in the righte waye For many styles folowynge in saynt Iohn wyl leade you into the perfect vnderstandyng of Christ deuinitie if it wold please you ordinatly to folow after them marke theÌ„ with an indiffereÌ„t eye And in the same place where ye were last you fynde that Christ is the true lyght Iohn i. which dothe illuminate euery man comynge into this worlde Ye fynde also that grace truthe came by Iesus Christ Iohn i. Ye fynde agayne Iohn i. Rabby thou art euen the very sonne of God thou art the kyng of Israell Euen there also behold the laÌ„be of God which taketh away the synnes of the worlde Now syr to be the true lyght Iohn i To illuminate all that come in to the worlde To be grace and truthe it selfe as in another place he dooeth wytnesse the same of him selfe sayeng I am the way Ioh. iiii the veritie and lyfe To take awaye the synnes of the worldle To be euen the veray sonne of God Is it for man or for God say ye For God onlye ye can not denye And the styles folowyng euen in the same chapter do ascribe all this to him wherefore he is true God Thus your style euery wher lacketh edge to cut the butter that may stycke to your breade Arri. AND IF oportunitie serued to searche the Scriptures accordingly it shulde easely appeare that Christ is not of the same substaunce or nature neither equall with God the father And suche places and testimonyes as now come ot my remembraunce I wyll hereunto add c. Proct BVT before ye adde any more let me adde my subtraction to youre firste addicion and then adde and multiply what you lyst Ye say it may easely appeare by the scriptures Christ nto to be equal with God the Father neither to be of yâ— same substaÌ„ce or nature with him And I saye it were veray harde for you to make that easelye appeare to any all if ye had neuer so muche oportunitie to searche the scriptures The best ye can do ye haue already done therin But it easely appereth I dout not to euery right ChristiaÌ„ by that your best doyng that ye can do least with the worst to bring that your purpose aboute I haue sufficientlye before declared by the sincere and vncorrupte scriptures to the full contentacyon of any Christian mynde I hope the equalitie of the sonne Iesus Christ bothe in power also nature with God the father Notwithstandyng sythen now eftsones in this place ye denye the same I shall not let presently also to sai somthing that may make with Christ and agaynst you I wold were therfore of you what in all the scriptures is attributed to God the Father that is not also attributed ascribed vnto the soÌ„n Iesus Christ If in the scriptures nothiÌ„g is referred to God the father but that whiche is lykewyse applyed to the sonne Iesus Christ thaÌ„ of force it foloweth that by the scriptures the Father and the Sonne ar of one and the same substaunce or nature and equall in all poyntes touchyng Deninitie And that the scriptures do matche hym with the Father in all poyntes of the Godhead be ii proued by the scriptures in this discourse The Father is called God in the scriptures so is the Sonne of whome it is sayde i. Ioh. v. This same sonne Iesus Christ is veray God and eternall lyfe The Father is called Lorde so is the Sonne of whom it is sayde And one Lorde Iesus Christ which is God aboue all thyng Mat. xxii Psa c. ix blessed for euer And agayne The Lord sayd vnto my Lorde c. The Father is called holy so is the Sonne of whom it is written I know the what thou art Mark i. euen the holy one of god c. The Father is called Iudge so is the Sonne of whow it is sayde There is one lawmaker Iudge Iam. iiii which is able to saue and distroye The Father is called iust so is the Sonne of whom it is sayd The iust righteous iudgement of God shal be opened which wyll rewarde euery man accordyng to his dedes Here ye see that hys iudgement is called iust and the iudgement of God wherfore he is iust and God The father is called true So is the Sonne and truth it selfe him selfe sayiyng I am the way veritie and lyfe Ioh. xiiii The father is called hyghe so is the Sonne of whom it is writtenâ— Hygh aboue all nacions the Lorde Psa cxii aboue the heauens his glorye Psa c ii The Father is called the lyght so is the Sonne himselfe saiyng I am the lyght of the worlde Ioh. viii he that foloweth me doth not walke in dâ—rkenesse but shall haue the lyght of lyfe The Father gyueth lyfe euerlastyng so doothe the Sonne himself saiyng Iohn x. My sheepe do here my voyce and they folow me and I do giue lyfe euerlastyng vnto them The Father doth saue so dothe the Sonne of whom it is sayde Mat. i. he shall make hys people safe frome their synnes The Father doothe rayse quicken so dothe the Sonne of whom it is written Iohn v. As the Father doothe rayse vp the dead and quicken euen so the sonne dothe quycken whome he wyll The Father is called euerlastyng so is the sonne Iohn i. Ioh. viii of whom it is sayde In the beginnyng was the worde Ioh. viii c. himselfe saiynge Before Abraham was I am The Father made all thyngê so dyd the sonne of whom it is sayde All thyng was made by him Iohn i. with out him nothyng is made The Father doth know the secret thoughtes and cogitacions of the mynde so dothe the Sonne of whoÌ„ it is said But he knew their though tes Cor. xi Apo x. sayd vnto them c. Agayn al Congregacions shall knowe that I am the sercher of the hertê myndê The Father is euery where so is he Sonne of whom it is sayde In omni loco dominaciones eius Psal c ii And he him selfe sayeth Where soeuer .ii. or .iii. are
reason and blinde senses for the determinacion of such supernaturall matiers I can no more preuayle in teaching you then dothe the corke in vpholdig the net that it may swyme aboue water when so much led is annexed that it vyolently pull the same to the bottom Where ye saye therefore Howe may it be thought true religioÌ„ that vniteth in one subiecte contraries c. To make you an aunswere that ye may vnderstande I replye vnto you with the lyke phrase How may it be thought a true relygyon which techeth that a virgin brought forthe a chylde without the seede of man If ye can make good this ye canne not but admytte thother alsoâ— both beynge true for one consyderacion The worde of God telleth you that Marye conceaued and delyuered a chylde withoute the carnall knowleage of man and ye do belyue it why Because your reason can comprehende howe it may come to passe No why then bycause the worde ye wyll say doth wytnes that it was so lykewyse the same worde is a playne testymonye that in Iesus Christ were vnited .ii. contrarye natures th one inuisible and immortall thother visible and mortal why do ye not beleue it Why dought ye more of the religion that teacheth vs the vnion of suche contraries in Chryst then of that relygion which reacheth vs that a virgin brought forth a chylde seyng both haue one and the selfe same grounde Here your howe gyueth me occasyon to speake of the wonderfull myracles which Chryst wrought emongest vs. aboue al humayne reason to th ende this myght not seeme vnpossyble to your fayth tho your wytte can not compasse it that Iesus Chryst was bothe God and man To whom beinge omnipotent all thinge is easye and possible be it neuer so difficult and impossible to mans vnderstanding and iudgement But to avoide tediousnes I wyll not vse the occasion As it is true and Godlye relygion which teacheth vs that Chryst did such miracles so is it a true and Godly religyoÌ„ to beleue that Christ is true God and perfecte man for both were lyke possible to him And of both we haue lyke proufe By his worde we are assured he dyd them and by his word also we are put out of dought he dyd this Thus haue I taughte you howe it maye be thought true relygion whiche vniteth contraries in one subiecte And touchinge your principle of natural Philosophie coÌ„traries can not concurre in one subiect I meruel much that ye wold vse it to try and decide the hie misteries of god therwith al. Howe be it I shulde not much meruell therat For as the serpent called Amphisbena hath a head at both endes and vseth bothe partes in steade of a tayle as it ly kethe him In like maner such inconstant and wauerynge persons as ye are nowe by this nowe that wayes doo defende your selues applying euery thinge to your in tent framyng the same to proue improue as your fansy like And as Hyena is sometyme a male somtyme a female so ye one whyle ye be deuynes an otherwyle Natural phylosophers as ye perceue how your purpose may best succeade and go forwarde But truly as the people in Asya named Androgini do so imitate bothe kyndes that they be nor men nor women euen so ye counterfeicte to pley bothe deuynes and Natural Phylosophers after suche sorte that ye proue your selfes to be none of both Where ye talke of relygioÌ„ of fayth gods misteries ye counterfect a deuyne But where ye cum in with your contraryes in one subiect ye speake foly shely Phylosophycally I wolde haue sayde Agayne in that ye councell Natural Phylosophie for the declaracyon of deuinitie ye bewraye your selfe to be no deuine And in that ye include the hygh suê‘naturall misteries of God within the circuite compasse of Naturall Philosophie ye declare your selfe to be no Philosopher not knowynge that the dicyon and Limities therof extend no further then naturall matters Thus whyles ye wolde be seene bothe a deuyne and a Phylosopher ye shewe your selfe to be none of bothe And as ye are neyther good deuyne nor cunnynge Phylosopher accordynge to youre skyll in the one and cunnynge in the other ye haue so vndescreately coupled deuinitie and Philosophie together in this your sentence that the fruite spronge of that compulacion is nor deuinitie ne Philosophie but as the Mule engendred betwyx an Asse and a mare is nether Asse nor mare so by this youre vnnaturall coniunction of supernaturality and Naturallytye togyther yee haue brought forthe but to youre selfe alone I hope a fowle prodigious monster all vnlike to deuynytye all vnknowe to Philosophy As That Christ is not GOD and man accordynge to true Religion because naturall Philosophyes Rule is that Contraryes can not be in one subiect PerchauÌ„ce ye are mery of this talke well I wyll make an ende strayght waye As ye can not reason Natural Philosophie by deuinitie so can ye not teache diuinitie by Naturall Philosophy In th one faith admitteth no impossibilitie to be In the other reason contendeth nothynge possible to bee if by reason it be not comprehensible In th one faythe maketh all thing reasonable that is aboue reason In thother reason maketh all thyng incredible which is not within reason Therfore as in can not stande by naturall Philosophy one thyng to be both visible inuisible mortall and immortall in one respecte because contraryes can not be founde at once in one subiects by reason So is it perfecte true Religion by deuinitie to beleue that one thyng is visible and inuisible mortall immortall bycause contraryes are vnited in one subiecte contrary to reason Arri. IT IS laufull by many wayes to see the infirmitie of Iesus Christ whome Paule in the last Chapiter to the Corinthians of the seconde epist denyeth not to be crucifyed through infirmitie And the whole course and consent of the euangelicall historye doth make him subiecte to the passioÌ„s of man as hungre thyrst werynesse and feare to the same end lykewise at swere anxietie continuall prayer the consolacion of the angell agayn spittyng whypping rebukes or checkes his corpes wrapte in the lynnen clothe vnburyed And to beleue for sothe that this nature subiect to these infirmities and passioÌ„s is God or any parte of the deuine essens What is it wother but to make God mighty and of power of th one parte weake and impotent of thother parte whiche thynge to thynke it were madnesse folly to perswade other impieties Proct ANACHARSIS saiyng was that the Athenians occupyed their money to no other ende but to number by the numbrynge vp gatheryng togither these places of the scripture so nycely against Christê deuinitie may we not iustly thynke good syr that ye haue reade the holy scriptures to pyke out matter stuffe therhence rather to mainteyne disputacion talke then for any other godly ende and purpose If ye can denye this how happened then that ye haue heaped these sentences to gither only
withoute the companynge together of manne and womanne in the Acte of generacyon And therefore he saythe thus Sicut vermis calefaciente sole de puro limo formatur Aug de erposâ—ciove simboli ser i. sic spiritu sancto illustrante et sanctificante cor virginis nulla sementiua carnis origine operante concepta est vnde se vtrini Christus comparans per psalmistam ait ego sâ—m vermis non homo i. Non coÌ„ceptus more humano Which is as muche to saye As the worme is engendred of the pure and onely slyme or mudde beynge made hote with the warmesume euen so the holye ghost illustratynge and halowynge the herte of the vyrgyn she was conceyued with chylde without any humane acte of engendrynge wrought therein In conlideration whereof Chryste comparynge hym selfe to a worme sayth by Dauid I am a worme and not man that is I am not conceaned after the maner and fashyon of man Thus farre Saynt Austen Further he is called I graunte peccatum .i. synne but accordynge to his humanite in which he became the sacryfyce for synne to our inestimable comforte He was not in deed synne as the letter soundeth neither had he any syn in hym at any tyme. The peyne for synne onelye was in him which he admitted to him selfe to th ende he wolde put awaye and dyscharge from vs his people both as well the synne as the peyne dewe for the same In the lawe sayth S. Austen synne is taken for the sacryfyce for syn suche a syn was Chryst and none other In which sence S. Paul sayth 2. Cor. v. Eum qui non nouit peccatum pro nobis peccatuÌ„ secit That is he hath made him to be synne for vs which knewe no syn And therefore in the eyght to the Romans it is sayde of him Roma 8. Misit Deus filium suum in similitudinem car nis paccati That is God sent his son in the symylitude of synfull flesshe and not in fynfull fleshe Where as ye saye therfore that Chryst is called synne ye must vnderstand that worde syn to sygnyfye the sacrifyce for synne which he being veray true God and man vouchesaued to be to th ende he that was our creatour in his Godhead myght be also oure redemer in his manhead And we therby shulde be made that ryghtwysnes whiche before the father is allowed And this was nothynge preiudycyall to his deuinitie Fynallye of these names and the lyke aswell whiche ye haue pycked together as all the rest applyed to Iesus Chryst in the Scrypture ye ought reuerentelye to thynke that they are attributed vnto hiÌ„ in some consideracion touchinge his humanitie or els as Dionise Areopagita doth councel accordyng to some deuine anagoge that is an hyghe and subtyl vnderstandyng Nowe forth Arri. HE is called nowe and then the Image of God for that I suppose his lyfe is as ye wolde saye the glasse of the deuyne wyl to warde vs. Proct YEA and for that he is of the same essence and substaunce that the father is of And therfore he is also called splendor gloriae And Character substancie patris And in thapostolyke Crede Lumen de lumine Deum de deo That is light of lyght God of God And Chryst onlye is the ymage of God Other are secundum imaginem dei That is accordyng to the Image of God The father saythe vnto the son make we man and addeth secudnnm imagineÌ„ nostram That is accordynm to our Image By which wordes it is euident sayth saynt Austen that the father and the son are but one Image Arri. HE is called the worde also verelye because he was nerest vnto the father And as ye wolde saye the orgen or instrument of the deuine voyce For the worde is made fleshe what els dothe it signifye then that the felshe receyued the worde And that God the father dyd greeffe into Chryst as ye wolde saye by inplantacioÌ„ that heueÌ„ly doctrine which shuld concile vs vnto him and in maner coÌ„uerted the same into his nature That he shuld not say ne thinke any thyng but the worde of the Lorde not that the fleshe was conuerted into the deuine nature or admitted into societie and feloship with the same As it seemeth veray absurde at the fyrst blushe And that it is not true the style folowynge declareth plainely And he dwelleth emongest vs. c ful of grace Grace power is of God The fulnesse whereof doth make men desposed to the loue of God and the obseruacion of the lawe not Gods Proct. SYnguler as ye are so is youre iudgement vpon the scryptures singuler But I appeale to the wyse reader whether such singularity proceede not of a single wyt and thyne brayne As many as euer wrote vppon Iohn as dyuers holy and well lerned fathers haue donne Do expounde that plae of him the worde is made fleshe after this sorte That the worde the seconde person of the Godhead Iesus Christ came downe and was made fleshe that is to wit receaued the nature of man wholye and perfectly both body and soule vnitynge the same to the person of his Godhead And nowe syr contrarye to all theyr iudgementes and most of all contrary to saynte Iohn his minde who of purpose wrote his Gospell only to dysclose and declare Chryst his deutâ—itie ye haue shaped a straunge exposicion vpon that texte Bul howe fyt and meete what dâ—â—â—e perceaueth not The worde is made â—â—she that is to weete ye saye the flesâ—hâ—e receyued the worde and not the worde receyued fleshe which any reasonable man wolde certenly gather of that place And not that the fleshe receyued the worde For S. Iohn saythe not Caro verbum facta est The flesshe is made the worde But his phrase is Verbum caro factum est The worde is made flesshe whereof no man can iustlye gather that the flesshe receyued the worde but rather and as the truthe is the worde receyued fleshe for the worde was made fleshe sayth saynte Iohn meanyng by the worde made that the worde Iesus Chryst receyued and tooke vnto hym flesshe and by the worde fleshe he vnderstandeth the hole and perfecte nature of man bothe bodye and soule to th ende as I haue saide often that where as he was but the son of god and true God Nowe by the recepte of this nature he myght be knowen vnto vs the sonne of man and true man also He is therefore called the word not for that he was the origen or instrumente onelye of the deuyne voyce as ye saye he was But for thta he was in verytye the deuyne voyce it selfe and the true worde it self And this deuine voyce and true worde Chryst was made verelye fleshe That is to saye receaued of Marye the veray fleshe of man and became true maÌ„ as before true God So that nowe in one person he was perfecte God and perfecte man Yet his deuine nature not coÌ„uerted into the nature of maÌ„ or in any coÌ„sideracion admytted into