An exposition of a parte of S. Iohannes Gospel made in sondrie readinges in the English congregation by Bartho. Traheron ; and now published against the wicked entreprises of new sterte vp Arrians in Englande.

❧ The Fift READING.

VVith verie few, but the same most pithie, semelie, & apte wor¦des the Euāgelist hath declared vnto vs the diuine nature of the Lorde Iesus, & his power shewed forth, & set∣te abrode to the sight af al men, by his most wondreful worckes. For by this Godhead, & diuine nature of the Lorde Iesus, bothe al thinges were first made of nothinge, and now also al thinges ar preserued, & cōtinued in their state that they returne not to nothinge. By it al thinges liue, moue, & haue their bein∣ge. By it mā, wherein he excelleth o∣ther liuinge creatures, is furnished with the light of reason, & vndrestandinge which though thorough mānes faute, it be now greately blemished, & darckned yet the sparckes remaininge suffice to shew so much vnto vs of goddes sōne, as maie iustly cōdēne vs of wilful ignorāce.

The beames of his glorie euer shined in dede, & yet do shine euerie where to the sight of al mē, & mā was so first ma¦de by him, as he might perfectly see thē.

But he fondly folowinge Satās adui∣se wold see more thā was cōueniēt, & so lost the sight that he had, or at the lest so blurred, & marred it, that where befo∣re his eyes perced in to the glorie of Goddes maiestie, & cold wel abide the brightnes there of, now thei be so blūt that thei can not entre, & so weake that thei ar streight waie daseld, and blinded with so great glisteringe light. Yet it hath pleased God to helpe this weaknes other waies thā by the sight of his won∣dreful worckes, but most cheifely, cleare¦ly, & perfectly by clothinge his sonne, with mānes nature, which thinge our E¦uāgeliste teacheth with like compēdi∣ousnes, & shortnes of wordes saiynge, & the worde became flesh. The heathē sette forth the meruailous conninge of Vergil in cōpēdious, & shorte speakin∣ge, whan he saide that Aeneas passed by the fildes, where Troie was. For with one worde, saie thei, he swalowed vp so

manie houses, tēples, towers, huge buil¦dinges, & walles and left not so much as the ruines, & rubbish. But if we wel cōsidre the matter, we shal se that our E¦uangeliste hath comprehēded more thī∣ges, makīge to the purpose with as few wordes. For by these few wordes, the worde became flesh, he teacheth, that Goddes natural sonne, so ioigned vnto him mānes nature, that of two natures one person was made, which thīge cold not haue ben vttered with other wor∣des so shortely, & so pithely to the pur∣pose. For if he had saied, that Goddes sonne ioigned vnto him mānes nature, it had ben truly spokē in dede, but it had not so wel expressed the vnitee of per∣son. For an husbande ioigneth vnto him a wife, & yet thei grow not in to o∣ne person, after such sorte as the soule, & the bodie make one person in a man.

For the soule is not one person, & the bodie another person, but they both ma¦ke one person namely a man. But an husbāde not witstandinge his ioignin∣ge of a wife vnto him, remaineth one per¦son, & the wife another person, & they

be two persons, not one. Therefore the worde ioigninge shuld not haue so fully expressed the matter. For this ioigninge is a special, & singular ioignī∣ge. For Goddes nature is so ioigned to mānes, that one persō is made of bothe, namely one Christ, as of the bodie, and the soule one mā is made. And this is verie necessarie for vs to know. For if we imagine the lordes māhod, a natu∣re a parte, & his Godhead a nature a par¦te, with out such a singular cōiunction, & vnion, that of both natures one per∣son is made, as the haeretike Nestorius did, thā the lorde Iesus cold not be a me∣te mediator betwē God & vs, nor ma∣ke a sufficiēt satisfaction, & redemption for the sinnes of the worlde. For a me¦diator betwene God & mā must be par∣taker of both natures. And a sufficiēt re¦demer of al the worlde he can not be, that is a mā only. For how cā a mā sa∣tisfie the infinite iustice of God, ouercō∣me Satā, hel, & death, and giue life? Therefore the holie scripture teacheth, that the lorde Iesus was not, theophoros, as Nestorius dreamed, a mā in whō god

was, whom Gud assisted, & with whom God was presēt, for God is also in vs, but in him the godhead was so knitte, & v∣nited to his māhod, as those twaine ma∣de one person. And so it is wel & truly saide that God purchased his, cōgregati¦on with his blood, and that the lorde of glorie, that is to saie, God was crucified, not that he suffred in his diuine nature, but bycause those two natures ioigned vnspeakably together make one persō, therefore that the one nature did, and suffred, is attributed to thother, & some times to bothe together, that pertaīeth to one only. Which colde not be, if thei were two sondrie persons. As if the soule were a person alone by it selfe, & the bodie a person alone by it selfe, the soule shuld not so be saide to do, or suffre that the bodie did, ot suffred, nor the bodie, that the soule did de or suf∣fred, nor the hole man, that one parte only did or suffred, which thinges yet we now admitte, bicause of the vnitee of the person. We must know than this vnitee of person in the lorde Iesus,

God & man which the Euāgelist mer∣uailously teacheth in these wordes.

But where he saieth, the worde beca∣me flesh, he meaneth that the worde abo¦de stil though it became flesh, that the worde I saie was not chaūged turned, & altered from his awn nature in to flesh.

For some auoidinge Nestorius haere∣sie, who made two persons in Christ, fled the smoke, & rāne ī to the fier. For ether thei turned the diuine nature in to man∣nes nature, or mānes nature in to the di∣uine, or so confused, and mēgled the two natures together that nether nature re∣mained perfectly, as whan wine & wa∣ter ar mēgled to gether there remaineth nether perfectte wine nor perfectte wa∣ter. In our time also some Anabaptis∣tes haue taught, that the diuine nature was turned in to flesh for a time, & beca∣me felcable, and that now the lordes flesh is turned in to his diuine nature againe, and is no more flesh. Which dreame is to to sonde. For it implieth a plaine impos∣sibilitee. For it is as impossible for god∣des nature to be altered, & chaunged, as it is impossible for it to cease to be God∣des

nature. For what so euer maie be altered, and chaunged, hath an imperfec∣tion in it, & is subiecte to passiōs. But Goddes nature hath no imperfectiō, nor is subiecte to passiōs, for that were not to be God, so his nature cā not be chaū∣ged. We must therefore so cōfesse, & beleue the ioigninge to gether, & vni∣tinge of two natures in Christ, that we mēgle thē not together, nor turne tho∣ne in to the other, but that eche remaine stil in his awne propre nature. The Godhead is not the māhod, nor the mā∣hod, the Godhead. The Godhead is a nature by it selfe, & the māhod a natu∣re by it selfe, & of those two natures o∣na Christ consisteth. This vnitinge to¦gether of two natures, Cyrille laboureth to teach weake vnderstādinges by a si∣militude, though similitudes in this be∣halfe haue some imperfection. These be his wordes: Esaie the prophete saieth, one of the Seraphins was sent vnto me, & he had a coale in his hande, which he toke from the altar, & he saide beholde I haue touched thy lippes with this, & it shal purge thine iniquitee. We saye

that the fiere coale giuēth vnto vs a fi∣gure and image of the worde made mā. Which if it shal touch our lippes, that is to saie, if thorough faith we shal cōfesse it, it maketh vs pure from al sinne. But as it were in an image we maie beholde in the coale God the worde vnited to mannes nature, & yet that he hath not cast awai, that he was before, but hath rather trāsformed the nature which he receaued, to his glorie & operation.

For as fier fixed in the woodde, & per∣cinge in to it, cōprehēdeth the wood, & though the wood cease not to be wood stil, yet the fier sendeth his force in to it, & cōueieth it selfe in to it, and is now thought to be one with it, so vndrestā∣de of Christ. For God beinge incom∣prehēsibly vnited to mānes nature, hath in that kepte the same, that he was, & he remaineth stille that he was, but yet beinge once vnited, he is compted as it were one with mānes nature, makinge that, that pertained to it his awne, & giuinge it the operation of his nature. Hitherto Cyrille. He vseth also in this

matter the similitude of mannes bodie and soule ioign'd together, which in dede expresseth it of al other most pro∣prely. For the soule is not turned in to the bodie, nor the bodie in to the soule, but ech retaineth his propre nature, & maketh one mā.

AND the word) In that he saieh the worde became flesh, & not man, he sheweth how far Goddes sonne hūbled and abased him selfe. For the scriptu∣re calleth man flesh, whan it wil signi∣fie the pouertie, vilenes, and miserie of man. As whan it is saide al flesh is grasse, and he remembred, that they were but flesh, & my spirite shal not euer stri∣ue in man, for he is flesh. But whā the Euangelist saieth, the worde became flesh, we maie not imagine, that God∣des sonne ioigned to his diuine nature flesh only, and not mannes soule as Ap¦pollinaris thought in his traūce, that flesh, and the Godhead made one per∣son in Christ without mannes soule.

For he imagined that the diuinitee was in stede of a soule.

But so it shuld folow, that the lorde Iesus was not a verie mā. For flesh is not a man. For the soule is the formal parte of a mā, namely that whereby a man is a mā, & with out which a mā can not be. And that the lord had a mānes soule be∣side his diuinitee, he him selfe testifieth, whā he saieth, my soule is heauie vnto the death. Nether cā Apollinaris aide him selfe with this place. For whā the scripture calleth mē flesh, it meaneth not that thei ar without soules. For thā thei were no mē in dede.

Here we must know also from whens Goddes sonne became flesh. For we maie not thīcke that he brought his flesh from heauē, or made it in the aire. For the holie scripture teacheth, that he shul¦de cōme of the sede of Abrahā, & Dauid, & shuld be the fruite of his loines. For such plaine wordes it vseth to assure vs of the truth of so necessarie a matter, & vtterly to stoppe the mouthes of dotin∣ge mē. And in the writers of the new testamēt, it is most plainly sette forth vn¦to vs, that he receaued flesh out of the substāce of the virgin Marie. For. S.

Mattheu hath these wordes (to gar en aute gennethen) that which is engen∣dred in hir, &. S. Paule (genomenon ek¦gynaicos) made of a womā, & the An∣gel in S. Luke (ho karpos) the frute of thy wombe. The frute of a tree is of the same substāce, that the tree is of. That which only passeth thorough a thinge, is not the frute of that thinge. For wa∣ter is not the frute of the cōducte pipe, nor ale the frute of the spickette, or of the kinderkinne. Against this most ma∣nifest truth wherein the pith of our salua¦tiō lieth, the franctike Anabaptistes brī∣ge two prīcipal reasons, I wot not whe∣ther more ignorātly, or more vngodly. For first thei saie that if the lorde recea∣ued our flesh, he receaued vncleane flesh. But iudge you whether al the scriptures be they neuer so plaine must giue place to this their simple imagination, or whe¦ther their simple imagination shuld giue place to so manie plaine scriptures.

But first I aske them whether God cold not make cleane our vncleane flesh, or wold not. If thei saie he colde nor, they limitte his power ouer much. If thei saie

he wolde not, we wil hisse them out.

For if God of his goodnes wolde ma¦ke his sonne to die for vs, he wolde of his goodnes make his flesh cleane for vs.

Secondly laske them why God wold haue his sonne to be borne of a virgine, & not to be begottē betwene mā, and womā, after the commune course of the worlde. Doeth not that teache vs that he mēt to make his sonnes flesh pure & holie? Yea doeth not the angel so sig∣nifie in Luke, whan he saieth, the holie gost shal comme vpō the, & the power of the highest shal ouersshadow the, for which cause the holie thinge to gen¦nomenō, that is engēdred, shalbe called Goddes sonne. But this their reason hath no weight, bicause it is ōly forged in mānes braine. Thother is takē out of the scripture. For S. Paule to the Cor. writeth thus: The first man was of the erth, erthlie. The secōde mā is the lor∣de from heauē. In which place S. Pau∣les purpose is not to speake of the substā¦ce of our bodies, or of the substance of the lordes bodie, but of the qualities, as the wordes folowinge declare, hoios, of

what qualitee the erthlie was, of that qualitie ar the erthlie, & of what quali∣tee the heauēlie is, of that qualitee ar the heauēlie. This thā is the sense. The first mā was of the erth, erthlie, that is subiec¦te to sinne & corrupte affectiōs, which bringe death. The secōde heauēlie, that is ful of heauēlie qualities, which tho∣rough the power of Goddes spirite draw with them life, & immortalitte. As we bare the image of the erthlie, that is we∣re sinful, and therefore compassed with death, so shal we beare the image of the heauenlie, that is our spirites shalbe re∣nued to tru holines, & our bodies to im∣mortalitee. Wherefore whā he saieth the seconde mā is the lorde from heauē, he meaneth not that he brought his bo∣die from heauen, but that he is heauen∣ly, as he expouneth himselfe, that is en∣dued with heauēlie qualities.

Now to procede in our former pur∣pose, it shalbe good to seke out the cau¦ses why Goddes sonne became flesh, or as Sainct Paule speaketh why God was manifested in flesh.

And no man can shew vs thē more cer∣tainly than S. Paule hath don to the He∣bru. For there he teacheth vs, that the cheife, and principal cause was, that by death he might destroie him that had deathes power, that is Satan. For Sa∣tan had power ov vs, to punish vs with death, bicause we were sinners. And sinne cold not be purged but in the flesh of Goddes sonne. If he had remained God only, purgation, and satisfactiō, for sinne cold not haue bē made by him.

For the Godhead cold not suffre, nor shew obedience. But sith thorough disobedience sinne came in to the world, it must be putte awaye thorough obe∣dience, which required mannes nature.

Howbeit if he had ben man only, he could not haue ouercomme death, nether shuld his satisfaction haue ben sufficient for the sinnes of al the world, as we tou∣ched before, yea scarcely for the sinnes of one man. For the maiestie of God that is offended thorough sinne, is infinite.

And therefore he must be no lesse, that shal make satisfaction to that maiestie.

It was than of necessitee that God shuld

becomme mā.

Another cause was that he might be made like to his brethern, sinne only ex∣cepte. For as S. Paule writeth it was semelie for him, for whom, & by whom al thinges ar, whā he wold bringe ma∣nie childrē to glorie, to make the high capitaine of their saluation perfecte tho∣rough suffringes. For he that sancti∣fieth, & thei that be sanctifieed ar al of one. For which cause he is not ash∣amed to cal them brethern, saiynge, I wil shew forth thy name to my brethern and againe I wil trust in him, and agai¦ne, lo I & the childrē, whom God hath giuē me. Seinge than that the childrē were partakers of flesh, & blood, he like∣wise became partaker of the same &c.

A thirde cause S. Paule reherseth, & that is that he might be merciful, & pi∣tie the miserie of his people, hauīge felt tētations him selfe, that is to saie, that we might be the better persuaded, and certified that he wold pitie vs, knowin∣ge that he had experiēce and felinge of our miseries & griefes in himselfe.

For we cā not thincke that anie shuld pi¦tie

vs so wel, as he that feleth, or hath felt the same grife & smarte that we do.

To returne to S. Io. in thes his wor∣des, the worde became flesh, we haue a sī¦gular consolation, in that I saie Goddes sonne hath takē flesh of our flesh, & bo∣nes, of our bones. For so haue we a nigh affinitee, & familiaritee with God. And so that, that was ours, is made God∣des, and that, that was Goddes, is made ours. And we cā not doubte but that he wil do al thīges for vs, who beinge God wold familiarly be ioigned to vs in our nature. In tētations, & wrastlinges of cōscience, let vs flie hereunto, & cōsidre this great goodnes, & excedinge loue, & frēdlines, & we shal be relieued & pre¦serued frō the baleful pit of despeare,

AND dwelt) The greke worde escenosen, is asmuch to saie, as he made his tabernacle. Whereby the Euāgelist signifieth, that he was cōuersant amon∣ge them, as a verie mā, & that he shew∣ed not him selfe the twincklinge of an eye, & so vanished awaie, but had his ab∣ode, & cōtinued amōge thē longe time, whereby thei might haue sure, & certai∣ne

experience of his godlie behauior, of his singular vertues, and of his wondre∣ful worckes. Some thincke that by this worde is signified, that the lorde Iesus had no certaine dwellinge place in this world, but was faine to flitte often, and remoue. For so do thei that dwel in tentes, & tabernacles.

In vs) Chrysostome taketh (in vs) for in our flesh, and vnderstandeth, that the humanitee of Christ was a taberna¦cle to the diuinitee, & so frameth this ar∣gumēt against the haeretikes, that affir∣med the worde to be turned in to flesh.

The word dwelt in flesh, ergo the worde was not turned in to flesh, and made flesh only. For nothinge dwelleth in it selfe. It is also true that it is taken for amonge, in manie places of the scriptu∣re. One shal suffice for this purpose Act. 4. There was not one nedie, en¦autois, in them, that is to saie amonge them. The worde, escenosen, he ma∣de his tente or tabernacle, fauoreth so∣me what Chrysostomes vnderstandin∣ge.

AND we haue seen) Now the E¦uāgelist brīgeth his awne experiēe, & the experiēce of thother Apostles, & dis¦ciples, which with their awne eyes saw such actes of the lorde Iesus, as proued hī to be Goddes only begottē sonne. The Latines haue a prouerbe, that one eyed witnes is worth tē eared. Of those thin∣ges which we haue seen with our awne eyes we maye be faithful witnesses.

Thapostles bicause thei saw the thīges thē selues, which thei witnessed to the worlde ar called in the holie scripture, with a meruailous elegāt worde, autop∣tai, selfe seers, &, epoptai, inseers, or onbe¦holders.

WE haue seen) Where the Grekes haue sondrie wordes, that signifie to see, the Euāgelist vseth a special one, ethea∣sametha, which signifieth to beholde a thinge diligētly, & leasurely. We maie see thinges glaunsingly, which sight is not so perfecte, & certaine, as whā we be¦holde a thinge stedfastly, & leasurely.

The Grekes haue propre wordes for both kindes of seinge. The thinges that thapostles saw, thei so saw, as they cold

not be deceaued, & therefore they ar called, peplerophoremena, fully ascer∣tained.

His glorie) The diuinitee of the lor∣de Iesus shined out of his wordes, & de∣des at al times, & in al places. His uer∣tuous, & innocēt life, his miracles, his re¦surrection, his ascension, & sendinge of the holie gost, did speake, & as it were, crie out that he was Goddes sonne. He gaue them also a tast of his diuinitee, & heauēlye maiestie, whā he was most glo¦riously transfigured before them in the moūt. But how do miracles proue the diuinitee of Christ, seinge that mē haue don the like, as Elias and Elizeus in the old testamēt, and thapostles in the new. You shal vndrestāde, that the lorde Iesus did miracles by his awne power, which the scripture obserueth diligētly, & tea∣cheth plaīly, where mē do thē by a boro¦wed power. Of the lorde worckīge mi¦racles the scripture saieth, I saie vnto the arise, I charge the go out. Of mē, the lor∣de Iesus make the hole, in the name of the lorde Iesus arise, & walke. Man receaueth power to worcke miracles,

God giueth power. But the scriptu∣re witnesseth that the lorde Iesus giueth also power to worcke miracles, & that in his awne name. Whereby we easely see the differēce of the lordes worckinge & of mēnes worckinge of miracles.

The glorie as of) We behelde such glorie, & magnificēce, as besemeth god∣des only begottē sonne, & agreeth only to him. The worde, as, some times signifieth not the thinge to be in dede, but a likenes of it, as whā we saie, he spea¦keth holily, as a good mā, but he is an hy¦pocrite. Some times it noteth the truth of a matter & a thinge truly to be don. Walke as the childrē of light saieth Pau¦le. He biddeth thē not coūtrefaite the childrē of light, but to shew them selues the childrē of light in dede. After such sorte. S. Iohā vseth the worde, as, for he meaneth that such vertue, such power, as he had, declared him to be verely god∣des natural sonne, & that such thinges, as he did, belonge to Goddes sonne on∣ly, nether can be found in anie other.

As if we shulde saie of the most noble, ho¦lie, and blessed kinge Edwarde the sixte,

that he behaued himselfe, as a kinges sonne, our meaninge shuld not be, that he was not a kinges sonne, but shewed him selfe as though he had ben a kinges sonne, but our meaninge shuld be, that he shewed him selfe none other wise, than his birth required, that is none o∣ther wise, than a kinges sonne shuld do.

To our purpose, Kinges, and Prin∣ces haue their glorie, and their maiestie semelie for their state, the Lorde Ie∣sus had glorie semelie for Goddes son∣ne.

¶ THE ONLY BEGOTTEN)

This word auanceth the Lorde Iesus aboue al creatures, and teacheth him to be Goddes natural son. We ar also called Goddes sonnes, but that is by ad∣option, by fauor, by grace, & not by na¦tural generation. By natural gene∣ration God hath one only sonne, who of his goodnes, & mercie hath made vs partakers of that, that he is by nature.

This word, only begotten, ought wel to be weighed. For it tea∣cheth the Lorde Iesus to be of the sa∣me substance, that the father is of, and

and therefore verie God, and aequal to the father. For these thinges hange to¦gether, & folow one another. For our Euāgelist teacheth in the .5. chap. that whan the lorde Iesus saied, God was his father, he mēt, patera idion, his awne fa∣ther, that is his natural father, & there∣fore shewed him selfe aequal to God.

For it foloweth in dede, that if God be his awne father, that is to saie, his father by natural generation, he must nedes be aequal to God his father, For in the Godhead there is nothinge greater, or smaller. He that is of Goddes substā∣ce must nedes be God. And he that is God must nedes be infinite, aboue al me∣asure, & greatnes. So to be Goddes, ō¦ly begottē sonne, & God to be his aw∣ne father, bothe which wordes this Euā¦gelist hath of the lorde Iesus, ovthrow∣eth al that maie be diuised by anie rauī∣ge braine against his tru, & natural god∣head. Yet the Arrians lille out theyr blasphemous tounges stil, & francticly allege the scriptures for them. For first thei iangle that it is writtē in this gos∣pel, the father is greater thā I. Where∣vnto

first I saye that one place of this gospel is not to be expouned agaīst the hole purpose of the boke, which is to teach that the lorde Iesus is Goddes na∣tural sonne, & aequal to God. And sith the Euangelist hath this worde aequal plainly and expressely, thei shew them¦selues mad that wold make him to en∣coūtre agaīst himselfe. Secōdly I saie that in that place the lorde Iesus compa∣reth not his substance, with the fathers substāce, but compareth his present hū∣ble state, with the glorious state, that he shulde haue after his ascēsion. And the∣refore al the godlie old fathers welnigh haue taught those wordes to be spoken of his mānes nature, which shuld be forth with aduaūced to immortal, & incorrup¦tible glorie, by the power of the father.

Some greke writers in dede admitte, that the father is greater thē the sonne, not bicause he hath greater power, or that there is anie differēce in their substā¦ce, & essence, but in that he is the father, and begetteth the sonne, and is not be∣gottē of the sonne, therefore he maie be saide greater. The meaninge also of

those wordes, the father is greater than I, maie be this. The ende why I trauaile with you is not that you shuld staie in me, and loke no farther, but to bringe you to the father, as to the last marcke, that with me you maie see him, as he is. Whose glorie is more dere to me thā is myn awne glorie, & therefore I seke it more thā myne awne, & I thincke that I haue not accomplished myne office vn¦til I haue brought you to him. But our Arriās sith they be ouer the shoues, stic∣ke not blindly to presse forwarde, & to goe ouer the bootes to. For thei rūne to this place writtē to the Cor. chap. 15. Whā al thinges shalbe made subiecte to him, thā shal the sonne also him selfe be assubiected to him, who hath assubiected al thinges to him. But what if we aū∣swere that, that also is spokē touchinge his mānes nature? For the same autor S. Paule in the .2. to the Philip. tea∣cheth that touchinge his diuine nature, he thought it no robberie, to be aequal with God. Naie saie they, for than he shuld not haue saide shalbe assubiected, for that nature is al readie subiecte.

Wil they graūt than that the lorde Iesus hath a nature, that is not now subiecte to God, but shalbe hereafter? If they wil graūt that, thā wil I saie, that what so euer is not now subiecte to God in the lorde Iesus, shal nev be subiecte to God.

For that, that is once aequal to God, shal euer be aequal to God. How than is it saide that his mānes nature shalbe as¦subiected, if it be al readie assubiected? I aunswere bicause we shal thā know it, which now we beleue only. For as. S. Augustine proueth in the holie scriptu∣re thinges are saide to be don, whā they beginne to be knowē of vs. As whan we saie, halowed be thy name, Goddes name of it selfe is holie, but we desire, that it maie be so knowen to vs.

For fuller vndrestandinge of that pla∣ce of Sainct Paule, ye shal considre that al power is giuen to Christ, in that he is clothed with mānes nature. For God hath exalted him in the same nature, wherein he was humbled. The scrip∣ture than witnesseth, that Christ hath ful dominion, and raigneth ouer hea∣uen, and erth.

God in dede is our gouernor, but it is in the face of Christes mānes nature.

Now Christ shal surrēdre the kingdom, that was giuen vnto him, that we maie cleaue perfectly to God. Howbeit he shal not by that meanes vtterly giue vp his kingdō, where of as the scripture tea∣cheth there is no ende, but he shal as it were conueie it from his manhod to his godhead. For thā we shal haue an opē entree, & free accesse to the diuine ma∣iestie, where now our weaknes wil not suffre vs to approche. Christ thā shal this waie be subiected to the father, for thā the veale shalbe taken awaie, & the office of his mediation shal some waie cease, & we shal se God face to face raig¦nīge in his glorie without anie couerin∣ge & meane. And where sainte Pau∣le saieth that God maie be al in al, some thincke he speaketh so, bicause we shal haue than without anie meane manie cō¦modities, which god now ministreth vn¦to vs by creatures. For mainteināce of our life we shal than haue no nede of bread, & drincke &c. nether for aedifyin∣ge shal we haue nede of the sacramentes

of the church, nor the outwarde worde of the scripture, nor ecclesiastical offices. For God by him selue shalbe al in al.

Other teache the meanīge of those wor∣des to be, that the flesh shal couet no mo∣re against the spirite, but God shal pos∣sesse euerie parte of vs, and reigne in vs fully, and perfectly, which thinge in this life is only begonne. Here I wil leaue the Arrians stickinge in the mire, & wil returne to S. Iohā.

FVL of grace and veritee) Bicau∣se that afterwarde he setteth grace, & ve¦ritee against the law, there be that thin∣ke that his meaninge is here, that the A∣postles acknowleged him to be Goddes sonne by this, that he accomplisshed al thinges that pertaine to Goddes spiri∣tual kingdome, bringinge perfecte for∣giuenes of sinnes, & perfirminge inde∣de al that was shadowed, and figured in Moses law. Other teache that ful of grace and veritee, is as much to saie, as most amiable, and ful of true vertues.

And they verie lernedly shew how the∣se two wordes, chen, and, aemeth, ar ta∣kē in the scripture. Chen which worde

to vs soundeth grace, is taken for fauor, as whā Abraham saieth to God, im mat sathi chen, if I haue found grace in thy sight, it is asmuch to saie as, if thou fa∣uor, & loue me. And Salomon saieth, shaeker hachen, that is grace is deceauea∣ble, whereby he meaneth amiablenes, & what so euer winneth vs fauor in mē∣nes eyes. Aemeth, signifieth some times sincerite, & vnfainednes, some times lar¦ge bountefulnes, & liberalitee, some ti∣mes certaintie, surenes, firme, & cōstant abidinge. In the first significatiō that is for simple, sincere, & vncōtrefaite dea∣linge kinge Ezechias vseth it in the 36. of Esaie. Remēbre lord that I haue wal∣ked before the, be aemeth, in truth, & in a perfecte herte. In the secōde significa∣tiō we haue it in Genesis, if it please you to shew boūtifulnes & truth towardes my master. In the third Ezechias vseth it againe. The lordes word is good, on¦ly lette there be peace, & truth in my daies. By truth he vndrestādeth a firme & assured state of the kingdō. And this much for this time. Giue god the praise.