The institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions

The .xiiii. Chapter. ¶ Howe the ••wo natures of the Mediatour do make one persone.

[ 1] NOw where it is sayd, that the Worde was made flesh: that is not so to be vnderstanded, as though it were e••her tur∣ned into flesh▪ or confusely mingled with flesh,* 1.1 but bicause he chose him a temple of the Uirgins wombe to dwell in: he that was the Sonne of God, became also the sonne of man, not by confusion of substance, but by vnitie of persone. For we so affirme the godhed ioyned & vnited to the manhode, that eyther of thē haue their whole propretie remayning, and yet of them bothe is made one Christ. If any thyng in all worldly thinges maye be found like to so great a misterie, the similitude of man is moste fit, whome we see to consist of two substances, whereof yet neyther is so myngled with other, but that eyther kepeth the propertie of his owne nature. For neyther is the soule the body, nor the body the soule. Wherefore both that thyng maye be seuerally spoken of the soule, whiche can no waye agree with the body: and likewise of the body that thynge maye be sayd, whiche can by no meane agree with the soule: and that maye be sayd of the whole man, whiche can be but vnfitly taken neyther of the soule nor of the body seuerally. Finally, the propreties of the soule are sometime attributed to the body, and the properties of the body sometime to the soule▪ and yet he that consisteth of them is but one man and not many. But such formes of speache do signi••ie bothe that there is one persone in man compounded of two natures knit toge∣ther, and that there are two diuerse natures which do make the same persone. And so doe the Scriptures speake of Christ: Sometime they geue vnto him those thinges that ought singularly to be referred to his manhode, and sometime those thinges that do peculiarly belong to his godhed, and sometime those thinges that do comprehend both natures, and doe agree with neyther of them seuerally. And this con∣ioynynge of the two natures that are in Christ, they doe with suche religiousnesse expresse, that sometime they do put them in common to∣gether: which figure is among the olde authors called, Communica∣tyng of propreties.

[ 2] These things were but weake, vnlesse many phrases of Scripture, and such as be eche where redy to finde, dyd proue that nothing here∣of hath ben deuised by man. That same thing whiche Christ spake of himself,* 1.2 sayeng: Before that Abrahā was, I am: was far disagreyng from his māhode. Neither am I ignorant with what cauillation the erronious spirites do depraue this place: for they say y^t he was before all ages, bicause he was alredy foreknowen the Redemer, as well in the counsell of the father, as in the mindes of the godly. But where as he openly distinguissheth the daye of his manifestation from his eternall essence, & o•• purpose pronunce••h vnto himselfe an authoritie by antiquitie wherin he excelleth aboue Abrahā, he doth vndoutedly chalenge to himself y^e which is propre to the godhed. Wheras Paule affirmeth y^t he is the first begottē of al creatures,* 1.3 which was before al thinges, & by whom al thinges kepe their beyng: & wheras he himself

reporteth that he was in glorie with the father before the creation of the world,* 1.4 & that he worketh together with the father: these things do nothing more agree with y^e nature of men. It is therfore certaine, that these & such like are peculiarly ascribed to the godhed.* 1.5 But wheras he is called the seruant of the father: & wheras it is sayd, that he grew in age, wisedome and fauour with God and men: that he seketh not his owne glorie: that he knoweth not the last day: that he speaketh not of himself: that he doeth not his owne will: where it is sayd, that he was seene and felt: this wholly belongeth to his only manhode. For in re∣spect that he is good,* 1.6 neither can he encrease in any thing, and he wor∣keth all thinges for his owne sake, neyther is any thing hidden from him, he doeth all thinges accordyng to the free choise of his owne wil, and cā neyther be seene nor felt. And yet he doth not seuerally ascribe these thinges to his nature of man only, but taketh thē vpon himself, as yf they did agree with the person of the mediatour. But the com∣municating of propreties is in this that Paule sayth,* 1.7 that God did by his owne bloud purchase vnto him a Church: and the Lord of glorye crucified. Againe, where Iohn sayth, that the Worde of life was felte. Truely God neither hath bloud, nor suffereth, nor cā be touched with handes. But bicause he whiche was bothe very God and man, Christ beyng crucified, did shed his bloud for vs: those things that were done in his nature of man, are vnproperly, and ye•• not without reason ge∣uen to his godhed.* 1.8 A like example is, where Iohn teacheth that God gaue his soule for vs: therefore there also the propretie of the māhode is cōmunicate with the other nature.* 1.9 Agayne, when Christ sayd be∣yng yet conuersant in earth, that no man hath ascended into heauen, but the sonne of manne that was in heauen: truely accordyng to his manhode, and in the flesh that he had put on, he was not then in hea∣uen: but bycause hymselfe was bothe God and manne, by reason of the vnitie of bothe natures, he gaue to the one that, whiche belonged to the other.

But most playnely of all do these places set forth the true substāce [ 3] of Christ, which do comprehende both natures together: of which sort there are very many in the gospell of him. For that which is there red is singularly belonging neither to his godhed nor to his manhode, but bothe together:* 1.10 that he hath receiued of his father power to forgeue sinnes, to rayse vp whom he will, to geue righteousnesse, holinesse and saluatiō, to be made iudge ouer the quicke and the dead, to be honored euen as the father is:* 1.11 Finally, that he is called the light of the world, the good shepeherd, the only dore, y^e true Uine. For such prerogatiues had the sonne of God, when he was shewed in y^e flesh: which although he enioyed with his father before the world was made,* 1.12 yet he had thē not in the same maner or the same respect, & which could not be geuen to such a man as was nothyng but man.* 1.13 In the same meanyng ought we to take that whiche is in Paule: that Christ after the iudgement ended, shal yelde vp the kingdome to God & the father: Euen the king∣dome of the sonne of God, which had no beginning, nor shal haue any ending: but euen as he laye hid vnder the basenesse of the fleshe, and abaced himselfe takyng vpon hym the forme of a seruaunt,* 1.14 and la∣yng aside the porte of maiestie, he shewed himselfe obedient to his fa∣ther:

and hauyng performed al such subiection, at length is crowned with honour & glory,* 1.15 and auaunced to the hiest dominion, y^t all knees shal bowe before him: so shal he then yeld vp to his father bothe that name & crowne of glorie, & what so euer he hath receiued of his father, that God may be al in all. For to what purpose is power and dominiō geuen him, but that the father shuld gouerne vs by his hād? In which sense it is also sayd, y^t he sitteth at the right hād of the father. But this is but for a time, til we may enioye y^e present beholding of the godhed. And here y^e errour of y^e old fathers cā not be excused, which while thei toke no heede to the person of y^e Mediatour, haue obscured the natu∣ral meaning of almost al y^t doctrine that is read in the gospel of Iohn, and haue entangled themselues in many snares. Let this therefore be vnto vs the keye of right vnderstandyng, that such thinges as belōg to the office of the Mediatour, are not spoken simply of the nature of God, nor of the nature of mā. Therfore, Christ shal reigne till he come forth to iudge the world, in so much as he ioyneth vs to his father, ac∣cordyng to the smal measure of our weakenesse. But when we beyng made partakers of the heauenly glory, shal see God such as he is, then he hauing performed the office of Mediatour, shall cesse to be the em∣bassador of his father, & shalbe contented with that glory whiche he enioyed before the making of the world. And y^e name of Lord doth in no other respect peculiarly agree with y^e person of Christ, but in this, that it signifieth the meane degree betwene God & vs. For which pur∣pose maketh y^t sayeng of Paul:* 1.16 One God, of whom are al things, & one Lord, by whom are althinges, euē he to whom the dominiō for a time is cōmitted by the father, vntil his diuine maiestie be to be seene face to face. Frō whom so fare is it of y^t any thing shal decay, by yelding vp the dominiō to his father, y^t he shal become so much y^e more glorious. For thē shal God also cesse to be y^e head of Christ, bicause christes god∣hed shal thē shine of it self, wheras yet it is couered w^t a certaine veile.

[ 4] And this obseruatiō shal do no smal seruice to assoile many doutes, if y^e readers do fitly applie it. For it is maruellous how much the vn∣skilful, yea some not vtterly vnlearned, are combred with such formes of speache, which they see spokē by Christ, which do wel agree neither with his godhed nor with his manhode: bicause they cōsider not that they do agree with his persone wherin he is shewed both God & mā, & with the office of Mediatour. And it is alway easy to see, how well althinges hang together, if they haue a sober expositour, to examine so great misteries w^t such deuout reuerence as they ought to be. But there is nothyng that these furious and phrētike spirites trouble not. They catche holde of those thinges that are spoken of his manhode,* 1.17 to take awaye his Godhed: and likewise of those thynges that are spoken of his godhed to take away his manhode: and of those things that are so ioyntly spoken of bothe natures, that they seuerally agree wyth neither, to take awaye bothe. But what is that els but to say, that Christe is not manne, bycause he is God: and that he is not God, bycause he is manne: and that he is neyther manne nor God, bycause he is bothe manne and God? We therefore doe determine that Christ, as he is bothe God and manne, consistynge of bothe na∣tures vnited, though not confounded, is oure Lorde and the true

sonne of God, euen according to his manhoode, though not by reason of his manhoode. For the erroure of Nestorius is to be driuen farre away from vs, which when he went about rather to draw in sonder, than to distinguish y^e nature, did by y^t meane imagine a doble Christ. Wheras we see y^t the Scripture crieth oute with loude voice against it, where bothe the name of the sonne of God is geuen to him that was borne of the Uirgin,* 1.18 and the Uirgin her selfe is called the mother of our Lorde. We must also beware of the madnesse of Eutiches, leaste while we goe about to shewe the vnitie of the person, we destroie either nature. For we haue already alleged so many testimonies, & there are euery where so many other to be alleged, where his Godhede is distinguished from his manhoode, as may stoppe the mouthes euen of the moste contenti∣ous. And a little here after I will adioyne some testimonies, to confute better that fained deuise, but at this present, one place shal content vs. Christ woulde not haue called his bodie a Temple,* 1.19 vnlesse the Godhed did distinctly dwell therein. Wherefore as Nestorius was worthily cō∣demned in the synode at Ephesus, so also was Eutiches afterwarde condemned in the synodes of Constantinople & Chalcedon: for asmuch as it is no more lawfull to confounde the twoo natures in Christ, than it is to drawe them in sonder.

But in oure age also there hath risen vp no lesse pestilent a monster, [ 5] Machaell Seruettus, whiche did thruste in place of the sonne of God, a fained thing made of the essence of God, of spirit, fleshe and three ele∣mentes vncreate. And firste he denieth that Christ is by any other way the sonne of God, but in this that he was begotten of the holy ghost in the wombe of the Uirgin. But to this ende tendeth his subtletie, that the distinctiō of y^e two natures being ones ouerthrowen, Christe might be thought to be a certaine thing mingled of God and man, and yet nei∣ther God nor man. For in his whole processe he trauaileth toward this point, that before Christ was openly shewed in the flesh, there wer one∣ly certaine shadowish fygures in God, whereof the trueth or effect then at length was in being, when that worde whiche was ordeined to that honore, began truely to be y^e sonne of God. And wee in dede do confesse that y^e Mediator which is borne of the Uirgin, is proprely the sonne of God. For Christ in that he is man, coulde not be the mirore of the inesti∣mable fauoure of God, vnlesse this dignitie were geuen him to be, and be called the onely begotten sonne of God. But in the meane season the definition of the Church standeth stedfastly grounded, that he is cōpted the sonne of God, bicause he being the Worde begotten of the father be∣fore all worldes, did by hypostatical vnion take vpon him the nature of man. Now the hypostatical vnion is called with the olde fathers, that whiche maketh one person of twoo natures, whiche phrase of speache was deuised to ouerthrowe the dotinge erroure of Nestorius, bicause he fained that the sonne of God did so dwell in fleshe, y^t yet he the same was not man. Seruettus slaundereth vs, that we make twoo sonnes of God, when we saie that the eternall Word was already the sonne of God before that it was clothed with fleshe, as if we did saie any thinge els but that he was manifested in the flesh. Neyther dothe it folowe, y^t if he were God before that he was man, he beganne to be a newe God. And no more absurditie it is to saye, that the sonne of God appeared in

the fleshe, whiche yet had this alwaie from eternall begetting to be the Sonne, whiche the Angeles wordes to Marye do secretly shew, That holy thinge that shall be borne of thee, shall be called the sonne of God: as if he shoulde haue saide, that the name of the Sonne whiche was obscure in time of the lawe, shoulde nowe become famous and euery where knowen abroade.* 1.20 Wherewith agreeth that sayenge of Paule, that nowe by Christe we are the children of God, freely and with bold∣nesse to crye Abba, Father. But were not the holy fathers in the olde tyme also accompted among the chyldren of God? Yea: and bearynge them bolde vpon that interest, they called vpon God by name of theyr Father. But bicause sins the only begotten sonne of God was brought fourth into the worlde, the heauenly fatherhod is become more plaine∣ly knowen: therefore Paule assigneth this, as it were, a priuilege to the kingdome of Christ. But yet this is stedfastly to be holden, that God ne∣uer was father either to Angelles or men, but in respecte of the onely begotten sonne: and that men specially, whome their owne wickednesse maketh hatefull to God, are his children by free adoption, bycause hee is the sonne of God by nature. And there is no cause why Seruettus shoulde cauill, that this hangeth vpon filiation or becomming a sonne, whiche God hadde determined with him selfe: bicause oure purpose is not heare to speake of the fygures howe the expiation was shewed in the bloode of beastes: but bicause thei coulde not in dede be the children of God, vnlesse their adoption were grounded vpon the head, it is with out reason to take that from the heade which is common to all the mē∣bres. I goe yet further: Whereas the Scripture calleth the Angelles the sonnes of God,* 1.21 whose so greate dignitie dyd not hang vpon the re∣demption to come: yet muste it needes be, that the sonne is in ordre be∣fore them, whiche maketh the father to be their father. I will repete it againe shortly, & adde the same of mankinde. Sith from at their first be∣ginning bothe Angelles and men were created, with this condition, y^t God shoulde be common father to them bothe, if that sayeng of Paule be true, that Christe was alway the heade and the firste begotten of all creatures,* 1.22 to haue the firste degree in all: I thinke I do rightly gather that he was also the sonne of God before the creation of the worlde.

[ 6] But if his Filiation (if I may so terme it) beganne sins he was mani∣fested in the fleshe, it shal folowe, y^t he was also Sonne in respect of his nature of man. Seruettus and other suche frentike men woulde haue it, that Christe which appeared in the flesh, is the sonne of God, bycause out of the fleshe hee coulde not be called by that name. Nowe let them aunswere me whether he be the Sonne accordinge to bothe natures, and in respect of bothe. So in deede thei prate, but Paule teacheth farr otherwise. We graunte in deede, that Christe is in the fleshe of man cal∣led the Sonne, but not as the faithfull are, that is by adoption onely and grace, but the true and naturall, and therefore onely sonne, that by this marke he may be discerned from all other. For God voutsaueth to geue the name of his sonnes to vs, that are regenerate into a newe life: but the name of the true and onely begotten sonne, he geueth to Christ onely. How can he be the onely sonne in so great a numbre of brothren▪ but bycause hee possesseth that by nature, whiche wee haue receiued by gyfte? And the honoure wee extende to the whole person of the Medi∣atore,

that he be truely and proprely the Sonne of God, whyche was also borne of the Uirgin, and offered hym selfe for sacrifice to hys father vpon the crosse:* 1.23 but yet in respecte of hys Godheade, as Paule teacheth, when he saith, he was seuered oute to preache the Gospell of God, whiche he had before promised of his Sonne, whiche was begot∣ten of the seede of Dauid according to his fleshe, and declared the sonne of God in power. But why, when he nameth him distinctly the Sonne of Dauid accordinge to the fleshe, shoulde he seuerally say, that he was declared the Sonne of God, vnlesse he meante to shewe that this dyd hange vpon some other thinge, than vpon the very fleshe? For in the same sense in an other place he saithe,* 1.24 that hee suffered by the weake∣nesse of the fleshe, and rose againe by the power of the spirite, euen so in this place he maketh a dyfference of bothe natures. Truely they must needes graunt, that as he hathe that of his mother for whiche he is called the Sonne of Dauid, so he hathe that of his Father for whi∣che he is called the Sonne of God: and the same is an other thing and seuerall from the nature of manne. The Scripture geueth hym twoo names, callynge him here and there sometimes the Sonne of God, and sometimes the Sonne of Man. Of the seconde there can be no conten∣tion moued: but according to the common vse of the Hebrue tongue he is called y^e Sonne of Man, bycause he is of y^e ofspringe of Adam. By y^e contrarie I affyrme, that he is called the Sonne of God in respecte of the Godheade and eternall essence: bycause it is no lesse meete that yt be referred to the nature of God, that he is called the Sonne of God, than to y^e nature of man, y^t he is called y^e Sonne of Man. Again, in the same place that I alleaged, Paule dothe meane that hee whiche was accordinge to the fleshe begotten of the seede of Dauid,* 1.25 was no other∣wise declared the Sonne of God in power, thā he teacheth in an other place, that Christe whiche accordinge to the fleshe descended of the Iewes, is God blessed for euer. Nowe yf in bothe places the distinction of the double nature bee touched, by what ryghte will thei saye, that he whiche according to the fleshe is the Sonne of Man, is not also the Sonne of God, in respect of the nature of God?

They do in deede disordrely enforce for the maintenance of their er∣rore, [ 7] the place where it is saide,* 1.26 that God spared not his owne Sonne: and where the Angel commaunded, that the very same he that shoulde be borne of the Uirgin,* 1.27 shoulde be called the Sonne of the highest. But, leaste thei shoulde glorie in so fickle an obiection, lette them weye with vs a little, how strongly thei reason. For if it be rightly concludeth, that from his conception he beganne to be the Sonne of God, bycause hee that is conceiued is called the Sonne of God, then shal yt folowe, that he beganne to be the woorde at hys manifesting in the fleshe, bycause Ihon saith,* 1.28 that he brengeth them tydinges of the Worde of life, whi∣che hys handes haue handled. Lykewyse that, whiche is reade in the Prophete,* 1.29 Thou Bethleem in y^e lande of Iuda, art a little one in thou∣sandes of Iuda: Out of y^t shal be borne to me a guide to rule my people Israell, and hys comminge fourth from the beginninge, from the daies of eternitie. Howe wyll they bee compelled to expounde thys, yf they wyll be content to folowe suche manner of reasoninge? For I haue pro∣tested, that we do not agre with Nestorius, whiche imagined a double

Christe: whereas by oure doctrine, Christe hathe made vs the sonnes of God wyth hym, by ryghte of brotherly conioyninge, bycause hee is the onely begotte sonne of God in the fleshe whiche hee toke of vs. And Augustine dothe wisely admonishe vs, that this is a bright glasse, wherein to beholde the maruellous and syngular fauoure of God, that he atteined honoure in respect that he is man whiche he coulde not de∣serue. Therefore Christe was adorned with this excellencie, euen accor∣dinge to the fleshe from the wombe of his mother, to be the Sonne of God. Yet is there not in the vnitie of person to be fained suche a mix∣ture, as maye take awaye that whiche is propre to the Godheade. For it is noe more absurditie, that the eternall woorde of God and Christe, by reason of the twoo natures vnited into one person, bee dyuerse waies called the Sonne of God, than that hee bee accordinge to diuerse respectes, called sometime the Sonne of God, and sometyme the Sonne of Man. And no more dothe that other cauillation of Ser∣uertus accomber vs: that before that Christe appeared in the fleshe, he is no where called the Sonne of God, but vnder a figure, bycause al∣though the describinge of hym, then was somewhat darke: yet where as it is already clerely proued that he was no otherwise eternall God, but bycause he was the worde begotten of the eternal father, and that this name dothe no otherwise belonge to the person of the Mediatore whiche he hathe taken vpon him, but bicause he is God openly shewed in the fleshe: and that God the Father had not been called Father from the beginninge, if there hadde not then been a mutuall relation to the Sonne,* 1.30 by whome all kinred or fatherhoode is reckened in heauen and in earthe: hereby it is easy to gather, that euen in the time of the lawe and the Prophetes, he was the Sonne of God, before that this name was commonly knowen in the Churche. But if they striue onely about the onely woorde, Salomon discoursinge of the infinite hyghenesse of God, affyrmeth as well hys Sonne as hymselfe to be incomprehensi∣ble. Tell hys name yf thou cannest (saithe he) or the name of his sonne.* 1.31 Yet I am not ignorant, that with the contentions this testimonie will not be of sufficient force: neither do I muche grounde vpon it, sauinge that it sheweth that thei do maliciously cauill, that denye Christe to be the Sonne of God, but in this respect that he was made man. Bysyde that, all the oldest writers with one mouthe and consent haue openly testified the same: so that their shamelesnesse is no lesse worthy to bee scorned than to be abhorred, which dare obiect Ireneus an Tertullian againste vs, bothe whiche do confesse that the Sonne of God was in∣uisible, whiche afterwarde appeared visible.

[ 8] But althoughe Seruettus hathe heaped vp horrible mounstruous deuises, whiche paraduenture the other woulde not allowe: yet yf ye presse them harde, ye shall perceiue that all they that do not acknowe∣ledge Christe to be the Sonne of God but in the fleshe, do graunt it on∣ly in this respect, that he was conceiued in the wombe of the Uirgin by the holy Ghost, like as the Maniches in olde time did foolishly affyrme, that man hath his soule (as it were) by deriuation from God, bycause thei reade that God breathed into Adam the breathe of lyfe. For they take so faste holde of the name of Sonne, that they leaue no difference betweene the natures, but babble disordrely, that Christ being man, is

the Sonne of God, bycause accordinge to hys nature of man, he is be∣gotten of God. So the eternall begettinge of Wysedome, that Salo∣mon speaketh of, is destroyed, and there is noe accompte made of the Godheade in the Mediatore,* 1.32 or a fantasyed ghooste is thruste in place of the Manhoode. It were in deede profitable to confute the grosser deceytes of Seruettus, wherewith he hathe bewitched hymselfe and some other, to the ende that the godly readers admonyshed by thys exaumple, maye holde them selues within the compasse of sobrenesse and modestie: sauinge that I thinke it shoulde bee superfluous, by∣cause I haue already done it in a booke by it selfe. The summe of them commeth to this effecte, that the Sonne of God, was a forme in mynde from the beginning, and euen then he was before appointed to be man that shoulde be the essentiall image of God. And hee dothe acknowledge no other Woorde of God, butte in outewarde shewe. This hee expoundeth to bee the begettinge of hym, that there was begotten in God from the beginninge a will to begette a Sonne, whi∣che also in acte extended to the nature yt selfe. In the meane tyme hee confoundeth the Spirite wyth the Woorde, for that God distributed the inuisible Woorde and the Spirite into fleshe and soule. Finally the fyguration of Christe, hathe with them the place of begettinge, but he saithe, that hee whiche then was but a shadowyshe sonne in fourme, was at lengthe begotten by the woorde, to whyche hee assigneth the office of seede. Whereby it shall folowe that hoges and doges are as well the chyldren of God, bycause they were create of the original sede of the woorde of God. For althoughe hee compounde Christe of three vncreate elementes, to make him begotten of the essence of God, yet he faineth that hee is so the fyrste begotten amonge creatures, that the same essentiall Godheade is in stones, accordinge to their degree. And leaste he shoulde seeme to strippe Christe oute of hys Godheade, hee affyrmeth that hys fleshe is consubstantiall wyth God, and that the Woorde was made manne by tourninge the fleshe into God. So whyle he canne not conceyue Christe to be the Sonne of God, vnlesse hys fleshe came from the essence of God, and were tourned into God∣heade, he bryngeth the eternall person of the Woorde to nothinge, and taketh from vs the sonne of Dauid, that was promised to be the Re∣deemer. He ofte repeteth thys, that the Sonne was begotten of God by knoweledge and predestination, and that at lengthe he was made manne of that mater whyche at the begynnynge shyned wyth God in the three elementes, whiche afterwarde appeared in the fyrste lyghte of the worlde, in the cloude and in the pyller of fyre. Now howe shame fully hee sometime dysagreeth with himselfe, it were to tedious to re∣herse. By thys shorte recitall the readers that haue their sounde witte maye gather, that with the circumstances of thys vncleane doge the hope of saluation is vtterly extinguished. For yf the fleshe were the Godheade it selfe, it shoulde cesse to be the temple thereof. And none can be oure redeemer, but he that begotten of the seede of Abraham & Dauid, is accordinge to the fleshe truely made man. And he wrongful∣ly standeth vpon the wordes of Ihon, that the Word was made flesh. for as thei resiste the erroure of Nestorius, so thei nothing further this wicked inuention, whereof Eutiches was authore, forasmuche as the

onely purpose of the Euangelist was to defende the vnitie of persons in the twoo natures.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Ioh. i.xiiij
• * 1.2

  Ioh. viij.lviij.
• * 1.3

  Colos. i.xv. Ih. xvii.v.
• * 1.4

  Ih. v.xvii.
• * 1.5

  Esa. xlij.l. Luc. i.lii. Ih. viii.l. Mat. xiii. Ih. xiiii.x. &. vi.xxxvi.
• * 1.6

  Luc. xxiiii.xxxix.
• * 1.7

  Act. xx.xxviiii. i. Co. ii.vi. i. Iho. i.i.
• * 1.8

  i. Iho. iii.xvi.
• * 1.9

  Ih. iii.xiii.
• * 1.10

  Ih. i.xxix. &. v.xxi.
• * 1.11

  Iho. ix.v.
• * 1.12

  Ih. xxi.i.
• * 1.13

  i. Cor. xv, xxiiii
• * 1.14

  Philip. ij, v••••••.
• * 1.15

  Heb. ii.vi. Phil. ii.x. i. Cor. xv.xxvi••.
• * 1.16

  i. Cor. viij.••••i.
• * 1.17

  Aug. in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ad 〈◊〉〈◊〉. cap. 30.
• * 1.18

  Luc. xxxiij. & xl••••i.
• * 1.19

  Iho. ij.xix.
• * 1.20

  Rom. viij.xv.
• * 1.21

  Ps. lxxxij.vii.
• * 1.22

  Col. i.xv.
• * 1.23

  Rom. i.••.
• * 1.24

  ii. Co. xlii.iiii
• * 1.25

  Ro. ix.v.
• * 1.26

  Rom. viij.xxxij.
• * 1.27

  Lu. i.xxxij.
• * 1.28

  i. Ih. i.i.
• * 1.29

  ••••jic. v.ij
• * 1.30

  Ep. iii.xv
• * 1.31

  Pro. xxx.iiij.
• * 1.32

  Ec. xxiiij.xiiii.