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
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
many other places Semblably dyuerse texes euery where in the Scriptures to be readen shewynge and declaring his glory power and diuinitie to be euerlasting do necessarylye inferre and proue God to be euerlastinge also As in the fyrst of Peter and. v. Chapiter Per. v. Qui vocauit nos in eternaÌ„ gloriaÌ„ suam i. Which haue called vs in to his euerlasting glorye Rom. i. And Paul in the first to the Romans as ye touched the place to fore syath eterna eius potentia diuinitas Euerlastynge is his power and dyuinitie God also is inuisible ye say and I say the same with you for as saith IohnÌ„ iiii Iho. iiii Deus spiritus est God is spirite then no corporall thinge no materyall substaunce is God And hauing no body he can not be seene but is inuysyble to all bodelye eye Where it is reade therefor that god spake to Moyses face to face Exodus xxxiii And other the lyke sentences in the Byble the absuroytie of the sence doth shewe that we may not vnderstand it simplelye and as it lyeth for God hath no face But we muste take it by comparyson as thereby tunderstande and gather that Moyses knewe God more euidentlye then other Lykewyse where IohnÌ„ saythe Videbimus eum sicuâ—i est We shall se him as he is it is to be taken and vnderstanded thus that we shall see and perceue him herafter more better and more lyuelye then we nowe do that is to wit not by faythe nor throughe the vele of obscure and darke similitudes nether in the glasse of thinges creat But then we shall beholde and see the creatures rather in God him selfe as the Angels do Againe God is lyuing and true I confesse he is lyuing and euer lyuing by reason he is eterne immortall he is true and euer true truth it selfe whose wyll is not chaungeable nor mutable Omnis homo mendax Man onely is vntrue whose minde euery houre for the most part doth ebb and flowe neuer constant Fynally God is incommutable I do nat denye For I haue sayde that God is no chaungelynge he is euer as he is as he was and as he wyll be Tho some nowe a dayes gyue hym a newe dysgised lyuerye euery day and frame his holy word and testameÌ„ as a shyp mans house to serue theyr wicked purposes to mayneteine their folye howe so euer they lyke or mislyke Yet God I say and his worde o th incommutable Iat 1. Apud queÌ„ non est transmutacio nec vicisitudinis obuÌ„bratio With whoÌ„e saith S. Iames is no variablenes nether is he changed vnto darknes Saint Austen in his boke De creatura ternâ—eth him bonum incommutabili And Dauid wytnesseth of him sayeÌ„g Psa ci Mutabis ea mutabuÌ„tur tu autem idem ipse es i. Thou shall change that thynges and they shal be chaunged but thou arte euer the selfe same And therfore S. Austen wryting vpon the Geneses Aug. sup Genes sayth thus Deus nec per loca nec per teÌ„pora mouetur creatuta vero per loca tempora That is God nor by places nor by tymes is moued but the Creature both by places tymes is moued To be moued by tymes is meaned to be altered and chaunged by affection but God nor by place nor by tym canne be immuted altered or chaunged Mala. 3. hym selfe saiynge by the Prophet Ego DEVS non mutor qui est incommutabilis solus of these properties agreable to the God head S. Austen in manye places reuerently maketh mencion but of many one or .ii. places to reherce shal be ynoughe in this place Deus solus inuisibilis solus imensus solus incircumscriptus Lâ— de essenâ—â—n di crinâ—â—acts solus immutabilis solus incorporeus c God is saythe he alone inuisyble alone vnmeasurably greate alone incircumscript alone immutable alone bodyles agayne Deus spiritus natura simplex Quest do ui et v â—terâ—e Vâ—sta 〈…〉 lux inaccescibilis inuisibilis infinitus perfectus millius egens eternus immortalis c That is to saye God as a spirite of nature simple a light ammarcessible iÌ„uisible infinite perfecte wanting nothing euerlasting immortall c. This far I haue labored to confirme youre woordes and assertion towchynge the proprytes belongen to God and haue not dysagreed from you herein gladly confessynge with you that god is inuisible euerlastinge lastyng liuyng and true immortal and incommutable And all these epitheâ—ous to agree as the deuine nature that none is true God vnlesse the same be iÌ„uisible euerlasting c. Now let vs see what ye inferre Arri. AND if Iesus Christ euen he wbiche was borne of Marye was God so shall he be a visible God comprehensible and mortall which is no counted God with me ê™ great Athanasius of Alexandrye c. Proct. THE tree named Tilia writeth Plinie hath a plesaunt ryne or barke and a leafe in tast delicate ynough but his fruit is suche that no beast vouchsafe ones to touch it so vnplesaunt and noughte it is I prophecyed afore good soth that after so fayre floure blossome good syr wherwith ye mustered so freshly and so tymely ye wolde at lengthe yelde the lyke frute as ye nowe performe altogether vnplesaunte and nought good for no ende but to put vs out of dout that the tree is worthie to be cutte doune and to be cast into the fyre as Christ byd Is this the fruit of the right fayth of true religioÌ„ which ye promised to folow Hath the holy scripturs taught you to conclude thus to whiche ye promised to leane and cleaue withoute wrestyng and detortyng the same to wrong sense Haue ye tryed oute of the sacred founten the streme wherof ye promysed so faythfully to ensue without troublyng and pudling the same or that there wer more Iesus Christes then one that ye come in with your EueÌ„ he which was c. Or that Iesus Christ borne of Mary was not God Ye haue doone your wyll but ye haue not performed your promyse To answere you shortly I deny the argument And say that Christ is God notwithwandynge he was here amongest vs visible and mortall c. Yet is he no visible God Neuerthelesse true God is he was and shal be euerlastingly inuisible incomprehensyble and immortall To him that is fleshly and carnal in his vnderstandyng veray harde it is to conceaue how this may stand Our senses can not comprehend the truthe in this matter Wee muste therfore cleaue to fayth only for triall herein which easely amounteth vs vp into this tower of vnderstandynge We must suspende reason for it worketh treason to all Godds Misteries it reasoneth not worth a fygg in all such poyntes We ought therfore I say in fayth and spirite to learne the knowledge of Iesus Christ not by reason wyt Otherwyse we shall be deceaued proue our selfes at length to be very archdoltes wheÌ„ we thinke vs to be most sure and
iii. He that honorethe not the Sonne honoreth not the father None worthye to be honored but onyle God Chryst therefore is true God â—â—â—sâ—p ii because he is to be honored and worshipped In nomine Iesu flectatur omne genu Qui credit in filium habet vitam eternam Act. vii He that beleueth in the son hath lyfe euerlastinge â— thes iii. Domine Iesu suscipe spiritum meum Lorde Iesu receaue my spirite Ipse deus pater noster dnÌ„s noster Iesus Christus dirigat viaÌ„ nostram ad vos .i. God hym selfe our father and our Lorde Iesus Chryste directe our iourney vnto you ii thes ii Ipse Dominus noster Iesus Christus deus pater noster qui dilexit nos et dedit consolacionem eternam etspem bonam in graciam confirmeÌ„t vos .i. The lorde Iesus Chryst him selfe and God our father which hath louyd vs and gyuen vs euerlastynge consolacyon and a good hope throughe grace comforte your hertes and stablyshe you c. And in these and the lyke Testamonies of the scripture it is spoken of the perpetuall and euerlastynge inuocacion of Chryst yea when he is not visiblelye present and conuersant emongest men Wherfore this adoracyon and inuocacion dewe to Chryst may not be vnderstanded of an exâ—erne significacion of honor as the Iues cauell suche as is exhibeted to one present in our eye as to a king holdinge the Cyuyll imperie But these sayenges doo preache of Messyas perfectlye and louinglye heryng the supplicacion of his people in euery place at all tymes and seasons defending and comeforting the faythfull And these are the proprietes of the omnipotent nature It is therfore good and profytable for vs diligently to weyghe and coÌ„sider this doctryne concerninge the inuocacion and adoracioÌ„ of Messias Iesus Christ Which doctrine not only instructeth vs of Christes deuinite but doth also greatly coumfort and solace vs and vehemeÌ„tly exuscicate and stir vp our hertes to cal vpoÌ„ hiÌ„ For as muche therfore we ar required by the scriptures to inuocate and cal vnto Chryst let this consyderacioÌ„ be euer fraÌ„ke in our mindes that we must graunte and acknowledge deuine Nature to be in hym Because the inuocacion of him whiche is absent whiche is not bodelye present doth argue his omnipotensie For it letteth vs tunderstande that he can and dothe see the secrete motions and coÌ„ceptes of the hertes of men in all places Whiche is for God to doo alone Remember we also the example of the Churche so often repeting this prayer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Chryste haue mercye vppon vs Chryste haue mercy vpon vs. This prayer is a manyfest profession of Christes deuinitie Againe volue we often in our myndes the fourme of our baptyme whiche is the sume of the hole Gospell Mat. viâ— In the last of Mathewe it is wrytten Baptisans illos in nomine patris filij spiritus sancti Baytysing them in the name of the father and of the son and of the holye ghost Here are thre persons named and to all thre lyke power and honor ascribed The sence and menynge of whiche wordes I baptyse the in the name of the father of the son and of the holye ghost is this I wytnes and testyfye the to be accepted of the euerlasting father and of the son and of the holye ghoste and throughe the mercy and power of them to be delyuered from synne and death euerlastyng and to be rewarded with ryghtuesnes and lyfe euerlastyng Examine we the wordes well and they lette vs to vnderstande that god the father is omnipotente is to be inuocated And for as much they do so muche attribute to the father And seing the son and the holy ghost are matched and ioyned with him in that honor as lyke doers Necessitie inferreth theyr power to be equall and lyke And their power beynge equall and lyke out of question they be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the grecians terme them that is to saye of one essence and nature Of which wordes also of Baptisme Basil that graue and Auncyente wryter dothe myghtelye contende the father the son the holy ghost to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hereunto accordeth all the olde and graue fathers whose autorytes and censures I wyll not alleage to auoide tediousnes Onlye one or .ii. places of S. Austen it shall not be frome the purpose to recyte nor vnplesaunt to the godly reader whose iudgement vppon the scryptures is to be regarded muche more then youres is for sondrye causes This holye S. Austen made whole bokes in confutacyon of Arrius and other good bloodes of the same heare beynge heuye masters to Chrystes deuinitie And in all other his workes al most he taketh occacion somwhat more or les to speake of this truthe he sayth Lib. de heâ—esibus Cap. c. Ambo scilicet pater et filius eterni nec caeperunt esse nec desierunt That is both as well the father and the son be euerlastynge nor began they to be neather ende they Agayne Proprium est filij quod a patre genitus est solus a solo coetertus consubstancialis patri Lib de in quisicone â—tiuitaus That is it is onelye proper to the son that he was begotten of the father a lone of a lone coeterne and consubstaunciall to the father Li â—â— de trinitate Cap. xxi Sed plane sidenter dixerim vnius erusdomque substantie patrem silium spiritum sanctum But I dare boldely saye the father the son and the holye ghost to be of one and the same substaunce In these fewe places S. Austen vttereth his opinion playnelye And declareth him self to be resolued and out of dought coÌ„cerniÌ„g this verite In comparison what he hath written touchinge this mater that which I haue brought of his is nothing yet ynoughe for the purpose presentlye Thus haue I perfourmed the fyrst parte of my promysse in declaring by the scriptures that Iesus Christ is true God It remianeth now the I shewe howe it standeth that Iesus Chryste beynge veray God whose nature is not to be seene not to dye nor to suffer any affecte or passyon wherunto the nature of man is subiecte as ye haue taught was heare seene suffered the Calamities of maÌ„ and fynallye dyed Whiche thinge donne I shall I hope confirme and stablishe thy consciens gentle Reader in this hyghe mysterye of oure fayth wherof thou art all ready perswaded perswade other that hethervnto doughted sufficiently answere to youre obiection and wholye accomplyshe my promyse Ye shall vnderstande therefore that in Christ are .ii. natures th one deuine by whiche he is veray God thother humaine by which he is true man That he receyued of God he father without mother This he receaued of Marye his mother without father What tyme he dyscharged the veale of the lawe leaded vs from fleshelye matters to spirytuall thynges And wroughte the hyghe misterye of our redemption Saynt IohnÌ„ wytnesseth of bothe natures when
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
be companyons of darkenes with them But Chryst brought lyghte into the worlde made open the veritie whereby he healed all They entysed and allured them to all abhominacioÌ„ and wickednes But Christ toke away the synnes of the worlde They tumble downe into the pyt of hell theyr worshyppers But Chryst auaunceth his into heauen Satan also is called god but Chryste and he gods far vnlyke Thone author of all goodnes thother author of al wyckednesse th one peace maker thother soweth dyssension and stryfe wheresoeuer he is receyued Thone treated al thinges good in the right vse thother laboureth to make all thinges yll by abuse Th one sauâ—th thother leeseth Th one calleth to euerlastynge lyfe thother to euerlastynge fyre The bely is called God likewise yea so is Couetousnes or auacies a great god now a dayes to whome much blasphemy idolatry is committed euerywhere If Paule douted not to call auarice idolatrye If Christ in the Gospell doth set manimon agaynst God as an other god I maye boldlye auouche them to be blasphemers and idolaters whiche serue the same which do more estâ—me their money then the true God As this auarice of money is the cause of muche mischief so it engendreth one wonderful yl thyng betwent the Princes of therth and their people I meane flatery adulacion wheâ— by the subiect perswadeth the 〈◊〉 oftenymes that he is Gods felow attributeth deuine honor vnto him driueth in to his head that all thyng is well godly what so euer he shall attempte all if it be directly against God and all to creepe in to fauour to aspiere to promocion and wealth And the Kyng or Prince of thother parte is not offended therwithall but taketh vppon hym what suche kynde of men ascribe vnto him So that it chaunceth somtymes that the people in stede of a good Christian Kyng haue a very tyraunt a spoyler oppressor of the Comen weale mainteyners of all iniquitie vyce reynyng ouer them And the Kyng agayne in stede of honest subiectes and graue councelours hath flatterers pyckthankes and holders vp yea and nay Finally what so euer ye preferre before God and his holy preceptes that same ye make a god But if it had lyked you to haue compared theire deedes as well as the name and the cause whoe they are called gods with Christis doingê the cause why he is god ye mought haue benne soner a shamed of your leude comparison And sayde with Dauid Non est similis tui Domine non est secundum opera tua That is None lyke vnto the O Lorde and none accordyng to thy workes Seekest thou honor and renoume he giueth the euerlasting glory Desyrest thou souereigntie he admitteth the into his kyngdome wherof shall be no ende Requirest thou richesse in him thou maist possesse all thynges who only is Lorde of all Seekest thou oracles or the certeintie of thynges Thou hast the scripture of most certen truthe in which he true God speaketh vnto the oute of his priuie closet as ofte as thou lyst Wylt thou haue pleasure he only gyueth perfect ioye whiche no man can take away Delyrest thou ease he cryeth mercifully Omnes qui laborati onorati estis venite ad me ego reficiam vos That is to say All ye that laboure and are laden come ye to me I wyl refresh you If to your gods this may be worthely applyed then out of doute your comparison was right and ye may iustly affirme them true gods as Iesus Christe is to whome the Scripture dothe ascribe this with much more mightely prouyng him to be God not in name only but in power and vertue deuine To conclude I say therfore with s Paule that though there be whiche are called goddes whether in heauen or in erthe as there be many goddes and lordes many yet vnto me there is but one God which is the Father of whom ar all thyngê we in him one Lorde Iesus Christ by whome are all thynges and we by hym This sentence of s Paule your selfe brought in but curtailed as ye vse all the rest for ye lefte oute the laste parte therof and good cause why for it made all agaynst your wicked purpose Therfore in any case see ye alleage not one worde as nyghe as ye can that may make agaynst your but wring and wrest tosse tugge mangle and heaw euery part therof vntyll ye frame it to your mynde if ye caÌ„ not leaue it cleane out a gods name take that which wyl serue And to theude the Christian Reader may vnderstande that ye are youre craftê maister in this point ye haue craftely practysed the same in all the places almost which ye haue hither vnto hereafter wyl alleage for the maintenauÌ„ce of your blasphemous error And where as the former sentence out of Paule ye curtayled now ye alleage another place of S. Paule but the myddes the bodye of the same cleane left out onlye ye bryng in the head and the tayle the rest discharged whiche is the effecte and chiefest parte of all it is out the .ix. to the Rom. and this is your alligacion S. Paule calleth Christ God blessed for euer But betwene God and blessed for euer S. Paul hath these wordes ouer al thinges and this is his saiyng Christ which is God ouer all thynges blessed for euer Amen Blessed s Paule wolde putte vs out of doubte that Iesus Christ was God not in name only as other are but in deede not in opinion but in nature power true God and therefore he added ouer all thynges for to be God ouer all thynges is only agreable to the omnipotent nature But S. Paule his mynde yours is not lyke And therfore no meruell if ye agree not in woordes He mynded to declare him to be true God and therfore he sayeth Christ God ouer al things but you wolde perswade that he is God only in name as other manye are and therfore ye say Christ god blessed for euer leauyng out ouer all thinges which wordes strongly only proue in that place the true Godhead in Christ For to be called God or to be blessed for euer is no proufe that he is true GOD The Prophetes with other were called goddes Dyuers were blessed foreuer yet none of bothe true goddes therby But to be called God and God ouer all thynges yea by the mouth of S. Paule what double can there remayne in any Christian mans herat but that Iesus Christ is true God And the place of S. Iohn Iohn xx which ye also reciâ—e doth confirme Pauls menayng and confounde your wicked opinion very plainly Yet can ye lyke pourselfe bryng it in craftely for contirmacioÌ„ and probacion of your iniquitie it is not to be denyed that Christ studyed to auoyde the crime of blasphemy But what dyd he therfore graunte that he had committed blasphemye in callynge God Fathe Or dyd he deny that he was the naturall Sonne of God the father
I and the father be al one Mat. 28. if in this point they be diuers how can it stande that al power both in heauen and yerth is gyuen vnto hym Iohn iii yf this be not in his power and knoweledge howe is it that the father hath gyuen hym all thynges into his handes yf this be out of his handes and power to tel Shall he be the hyghe iudge when that daye and houre commeth Iohn v. and yet knoweth not wheÌ„ it shal be Iohn i. Dyd he make all thynges and nothynge was made withoute hym and yet knoweth not of that day and houre Abydeth in hym all plenytude and fulnes of the deite Collo ii corporallye that is substanciallye naturallye from the begynnynge with the father not spiritually and through fayth only as in sonnes by adopcyon and yet laboureth he with this defecte and wante Dothe he knowe the father euen as perfectlye and as deeplye as the father knoweth hym Iohn v. and yet knoweth he not this point of his councell Dothe he gyue lyfe euerlastynge Iohn v. and yet knoweth not the daye and houre when he shall perfourme it Yes no dought as perfectlye and assuredlye as the father doth All if in this place in consyderacyon of his humanytie and to declare that the secretes and councels of God are beyonde mans vnderstandynge and knowledge he sayth of that day and houre no man knoweth neyther the Aungels which at in heauen ne the son but the father onely For he one beynge both God and maÌ„ knoweth and knoweth not knoweth as God knoweth not as man Both partes are apparaunit by the scriptures that are alleaged in so apparaÌ„t mater therfore dought not any lenger throughe ignorance to be deceaued it is excusable but vppon knowledge to be obstynate what shall excuse you Your thyrde texte is this Arri. WHY callest thou me good noone good but God Proct. MAgister bone good master sayde the yonge man what shal I do to optayne lyfe euerlasting whiche questian proceded from hym whiche stoode some what in his owne conceyte and moued this questyan to th ende he wolde rather be commended in that whiche he had donne theÌ„ in deede to lerne what he shulde do Mar. x. And therefore Chryst beynge as it were offended with that Arrogaunt name layde vnto hym what callest thou me good none good but God As yf he sayde why call ye me good whiche surname is aboue the dignitye of man and yet ye beleue not that I am veray God and the naturall sonne of God the father sente emongest you in the shape of a seruaunt for the redempcyon of mankynde He wold be called Good and acknowledged God or els he wolde none of bothe And all thoughe in this place for causes rehersed he semeth to rebuke the yonge man for callynge him good master yet shall ye fynde that in an nother place he vouchesauethe that name yea and calleth hym selfe good shepeherde Iohn x. Admytte the one and refuse not the other But and if ye thynke it proper for God to be called good lette hym be man in that he refused to be called good master in th one let him be God which calleth him selfe good shepeherde in thother And beleue assuredlye that it is not vnsyttynge for hym to be called good with the father whiche truely sayth Ego pater vnum sumus I and the father be all one yf bothe but one Why bothe not good aswell as one Arri. Gloryfye thy son c. Ioh. xvii Proct. IF this dothe proue that Chryst is not God then by the same it foloweth that the father is not god also for the sentens wholy recited which you seldome do importethe no les Clarifica filium vt et filius clarificet te Ioh. xvii Father sayth Christ gloryfie thy sonne that thy sonne also may gloryfye the. And in another place he saythe Ioh. xix Ego te clarificaui super terram I haue gloryfied the vpon the earth ye see then that this is but borowed ware it cummeth and goeth betwixt the father and the son with iust retorne if therfore Christ maye not be god because he is gloryfyed of the father neither the father must be god because he is gloryfied of the sonne for eche of them gloryfieth an other as ye haue herde Howe be it if a man wolde axe ye what is meaned by these wordes gloryfye thy son and what gloryficacion Chryst spake of I dought not but that your answere shuld vtter your folly and confirme my saieng vnles ye wolde euer of purpose and malycyouslye aunswere contrarye to your knoweledge and coÌ„science For in the same Cha. wherhens ye had this ye reade playnely these wordes Ioh. xvii Clarifica me pater apud temetipsum claritate quaÌ„ habui priusquam mundus fieret apud te That is glorifie me thou father with thine owne selfe with the glory which I had or euer the worlde was made If Chryst hadde glorye with the father or euer the worlde was the was Chryst with the father ab eterno eternallye from the begynnynge as Iohn dothe wytnes also in the begynnynge of his Gospell that he was yf Chryst was eternally from the beginninge with the father then was not Chryst any creature yf he was no creature then was he God Thus is Chryst true god euermore gloryous and the Lorde of glore Pauls wordes prouinge 1. Cor. 1. Si cognouissent nnncquam dominnm gloriae crucifixissent .i. If they had knoweÌ„ they had neuer crucified the lorde of glory Notwithstanding being also maÌ„ in his manhead as he could be crucisied so mought he be gloryfied likewise Acknowledge at leÌ„gth that in whom one semblable claryficacyon is in them is no dyfference of power Arri. ALL are yours you ar Christes and Chryst is Gods Cor. iii. This place of saint Paul Athanasyus that auncyent wryter dothe expounde in this wyse All thynges are yours onelye for that God hath subierte all thynges vnto you and haue ordeyned all thinges to serue your commoditie and pleasure You are Chrystes throughe your creacion seruitude Christes is Gods because he was before the wordle with the father and was of the same essence and substance that God the father is of And hereunto all the olde fathers agre and of our late doctors I knowe none that dissent in this poynt so that it is euydente that ye haue soked this out of your owne brain only as to contend that Christ is not god or of the saine nature with the father because Paule sayeth Christe is Gods or of Godâ— Vpon which wordes Bullinger writeth thus Christ is gods that is to saye sayeth he Christ is coequall with the Father and vnto him the Churche is subiect not as to man but as to the lyuynge God If ye marke well S. Paules wordes or rather the right meanyng of them ye shall not fynde Christê deuinitie denyed but rather manifestlye auouched as who in the same place and
he saythe Iohn i. Deus erat verbum et verbum caro factum est That is God was the worde And the worde was made flesshe By the flesshe is meaned man He calleth hym God because he was in the begynnynge coeterne and consubstancyall with his father as he in his Gospel proueth by many stronge reasons as after I shall more largelye declare He calleth hiÌ„ flesshe for that he came downe frome his heauenlye throne and toke the nature of man vppon him for the saluacion of mankynde in the appeasing his fathers wrathe conceued throughe the fal of Adam agaynste all his posterytye Iesus Chryst therfore hath .ii. Natures in hym one of Godheade an other of manhead yet Chryst not .ii. but one Libra de vera innocentia Ca. 347. Christus verbum est illud caro est illud deus est illud homo est sed vnus est Christus deus et homo Christe is the worde sayth saynt Austen that fleshe is that God is that man is But one is Christe God and man In a nother place wryting to Peter he saythe the lyke as he is muche in this matter euery where Lib. defide ad Petrum Capâ— x. Firmissime tene et nullatenus dubites dei verbum quod caro factum est duas naturas inconfusibiliter permanere vnam vero diuinam quam habet cum parre communem secundum quam dicit ego et pater vnum sumus alteram vero humanam secundum quam ipse Deus incarnatus dicit pater maior me est As muche to saye Beleue stedfastly and in no case doughte the worde of God whiche is made fleshe to remayne and contynewe .ii. Natures inconfuselye th one deuine which he hath with the father common according to which deuine nature he saith I and my father be one thother verelye humayne inconsyderacyon whereof he God incarnate saythe The father is greater then I. Hetherunto Saâ—nt Austen Suche was the loue mercy and kyndenes of Iesus Chryste our sauyour towarde mankynde tha the beyng very God omnipotent wolde be made man that man might be reconsyled to God he veraye God wolde descende frome heauen that man to heauen myghte ascende He veray God wholde be made the son of man than man myght be made the son of God He veray God immortall wolde be made mortal that man condemned to death myght be made immortall to euerlasting lyfe He veray God and ryche wolde be made poore that man myghte be made ryche Accordynge to the sayenge of Paul Cum esset diues factus est egenus vt illius inopia diuites essemâ—s .i. Where he was ryche he was made needye that throughe his nedines we might be made rich Nowe to the purpose as in Christ there was two natures whereby he was God and he was man Lykewyse he had in him the proprietes of iâ— natures The propryetie of his deuyne nature was not to be seene not to suffer not to dye c. For God is inuisible impassible immortal as we haue to fore grauÌ„ted But being man also and hauinge the nature of man in hym he had in hym he qualyties and effectes proper and incident to the same nature w hiche are to hunger to thyrst to be seene his members to be reâ—te and torne to suffer to dye c. Where therefore you frame youre Argumente thus God is inuisible and immortall Christ was here visible and mortal Therefore Chryst is not God This argument is not good the reason not true notwithstandyng the maior is vndoutely trew and can not be false For tho Christ was seene was crucified to death yet it foloweth not therfore that Christ was not God for he was both God and man To your minor therefore I answere thus Iesus Christ was God and man and in consideracioÌ„ he was God he coulde not be seene he coulde not dye In consideration he was man he myght be seene he myght be mortall as he was This answere is sufficient true catholyke S. Peter is playne ynough herein which sayth that Christ suffered in the flesh And Ireneus writeth that Christ was crucified ded Requiessente verbo vr crucifigi mo ri posset 1. The worde restynge to th ende he might be crucified deâ—d which is as muche to say as the deuine nature in Christ was not câ—â—t and torne was not crucified dead but was obedient to the father rested gaue place to the wrathe of the eterne father coÌ„ceaued against maÌ„ and wolde not vse hys power and myght And this agreeth with S. Phs◠〈◊〉 Paul saiyng Qui cum esset in forma Dei noÌ„ rapuir equalitateÌ„ Dei c. In our Englysh tonge it soundeth thus Christ which was in the shape of God and thought it no robery to be equall with God the father Neuerthelesse he made him selfe of no reputacion And beyng sent to obey the father in his passion he wolde not practyse his myght and power contrary to his sendyng buâ— tooke on him the shape of seruaunt â—â—cam lyke vnto man and receauyng with the nature of maÌ„ mortalitie he humbled himselfe and was obedient vnto death This haue I sufficiently and for the good readers contentacion I hope answere this your first reason or argument how so euer it shall content and satisfy your mynd And haue veraye plainlye set before your eye that Christ was true God true man hauyng in him the nature bothe of God man And that as he was God he was not visible not mortall As he was man he was seene suffered the passion affectes incident to the nature of man and finally dyed This assertioÌ„ great Athanasius of Alexandrye dyd neuer impugne but all his lyfe tyme with al his myght furthered the same and to the last day of his lyfe suffered greuous and sharpe persecutioÌ„ often in daunger of murtherynge through the malicious and wycked suggestions and deuelysh pollycies of Arrius and his companions for vpholdyng and mainteinynge this veritie touchyng Christis deuinitie Therfore in my iudgement ye are muche to be blamed to alleage hym as a fauourer of that detestable heresye And for as muche thoccasioÌ„ in thys place ministred by you serueth so well I wyl note out of Eusebius one or two prety feates practised by Arrius your predecessors surnamed Arrians of Arrius who was as I haue tofore sayd the first author of this blasphemy the yeare of our Lorde ccc xxx This Arrius therfore after the Councell of Nycene Euseb li. iii. triper hist ca. xi the Emperour Constantius coÌ„maunded to apeare before him at home in his pallace examined hym whether he yet beleued according as it was agreed vppon in the CouÌ„cell or no who with out delay subscribed the Decrees of the Councell as though he beleued on the same The Emperour required him to take an othe vpoÌ„ a booke if he beleued the said articles or not Arrius a man of a good large conscience stycked not at all therat but boldlye tooke an