Institutions of Christian religion framed out of Gods word, and the writings of the best diuines, methodically handled by questions and answers, fit for all such as desire to know, or practise the will of God. Written in Latin by William Bucanus Professor of Diuinitie in the Vniuersitie of Lausanna. And published in English by Robert Hill, Bachelor in Diuinitie, and Fellow of Saint Iohns Colledge in Cambridge, for the benefit of our English nation, to which is added in the end the practise of papists against Protestant princes.

But did the Sonne take his Deitie from the Father?

When we speake simply of the Sonne without the Father, we a∣uouch truly and properly that he is of himselfe, and call him God, because of himselfe he hath his being, and all that he hath; and ther∣fore we call him one alone beginning. But when we point at that relation which he hath with his Father, we iustly make the Father the beginning of the Sonne, and say that the Son receiued all from the Father, Ioh. 3.33. For the Essence is one thing, and the* 1.1 manner of subsisting another. Hence it is that the schoolemen say, that the Son is by himselfe not of himselfe. So the essence of the Sonne is without beginning, but the Father is the beginning of his Person. This made Hilarie to say: The gifts of the Father do not infirme but affirme the Diuinitie of the Sonne. And Augustine, Christ in regard of himselfe is called God, and of the Father is called the Sonne.

Ob. The Son and holy Ghost are not without beginning, there∣fore they are not eternall.

Answ. This is not a beginning of time or continuance, but on∣ly of order and ofspring: but the Sabellians here cauill, viz. Christ saith, He that seeth me, seeth the Father: and beleeuest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Ioh. 14.9.10. therefore the Father and the Sonne are one person. Ans. Indeed he that seeth the Sonne seeth the Father, because the Sonne hath the same essence with the Father, and being manifested in the flesh, hath deliuered to vs the whole will of God, Ioh. 1.18.

Ob. 2. That which is one in number, cannot without contradi∣ction be said to be th••ee in persons: but God is one in number, (Deut. 6.4.) ergo.

Ans. That vnitie doth signifie Gods simple essence, not the ma∣ner by which that simple essence subsisteth. Therefore God abso∣lutely according to his essence is one, because he is indiuisible: and onely in respect of inward relation, I meane the reason of subsisting, is three.

Ob. 3. If there be one being of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the holy Ghost: it followeth, that in God there are three diuers beings, and consequently three diuers persons.

Ans. The being of the Father doth not signifie that essence by which he is absolutely God, but by which he is Father, that is, in that he otherwise subsisteth then doth the Sonne: therefore the be∣ing of the Father is one thing, and the being of the Son is another, and yet both of them haue the same essence.

Ob. 4. If there be three Persons truly distinguished, and one on∣ly essence, then is there a quaternitie in God.

Ans. Not so: for the essence differeth from Person onely in rea∣son: but the Persons differ each from other both in reason and in being.

Ob. 5. The Father begot his Sonne either existing or not exi∣sting, to say either of these is absurd.

Ans. We may well say, that the Father begat his Sonne alreadie existing, because the Father was neuer without the Sonne, euen as the sunne was neuer without his light. Againe, it may be as well said, that he begat him not existing, in that his generation, although

it be eternall, yet in order goeth before existence, as the sunne is before his light.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Modus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.