The third part of the Defence of the Reformed Catholike against Doct. Bishops Second part of the Reformation of a Catholike, as the same was first guilefully published vnder that name, conteining only a large and most malicious preface to the reader, and an answer to M. Perkins his aduertisement to Romane Catholicks, &c. Whereunto is added an aduertisement for the time concerning the said Doct. Bishops reproofe, lately published against a little piece of the answer to his epistle to the King, with an answer to some few exceptions taken against the same, by M. T. Higgons latley become a proselyte of the Church of Rome. By R. Abbot Doctor of Diuinitie.

R. ABBOT.

How vaine this second imputation is, it plainly appea∣reth by that that hath been said of the former. For seeing both Caluin and all our writers acknowledge the eternall generation of the Sonne of God to be as before was said the Fathers communicating of the whole essence of the godhead to the Sonne, they must consequently of necessity be vnder∣stood to acknowledge the whole perfection and maiesty of the Godhead in the Sonne of God, because in the whole essence of God there can be nothing vnequall or inferior vn∣to God. This is argument enough, neither needeth there any more to approoue in this behalfe the integrity of our faith; because to attribute to the Sonne the whole essence of the Godhead, and yet to make him vnequall to the Fa∣ther, are things incompatible, * 1.1 and can by no meanes stand together. Well, yet M. Bishop telleth vs that Caluin in an Epistle to the Polonians in formall termes auoucheth that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his father. But

how vntrue this is may easily be esteemed, for that the Po∣lonians to signifie their agreement in faith with Caluin and with other Protestant Churches, thereby to cleere them∣selues of some iealousie that was had of them, did in their Synod by Faelix Cruciger write thus to him and others: a 1.2 We beleeue the Father to be almighty; the Sonne also as tou∣ching his nature, essence, or godhead to be in all respects equall to the Father; but inferior only in that when he was in the forme of God, he humbled himselfe, or in a word to speake it, in respect of his office of mediation. Now if this were Caluins beleefe, and in his Epistle to the Polonians he professe no other but this, as indeed b 1.3 he doth not, shall we not thinke M. Bishop a man very formall in telling an vntruth, who maketh Caluin simply thus to say, that Christ according to his Godhead is lesse than his Father? But yet by his Ma∣ster Bellarmine, we guesse what the bone is whereupon he gnaweth, who mentioneth one c 1.4 Stanislaus Sanricius for a patrone of Arianisme, for that he said that in respect of the office of mediation Christ euen in his diuine nature is inferior to the Father. From which assertion how the Iesuit should gather Arianisme, it is very hard to say, inasmuch as Aria∣nisme importeth the Sonne to be intrinsecally and essenti∣ally inferior to the Father, whereas his wisedom and lear∣ning if he would haue vsed it, might discerne that there is no meaning here of any intrinsecall and reall minority, but only of an extrinsecall, a dispensatiue and voluntary de∣meaning of himselfe, whereby he is in some sort inferior to himselfe also, reconciling vs in the person of a Mediator to himselfe as he is absolutely God. And could he not con∣ceiue this to be as tollerable and true a speech in vs as in Maldonatus his fellow Iesuit, who in the same termes affir∣meth d 1.5 the Sonne to be inferior to the Father, not as touching any inequality of Godhead, but as touching the office and will of our redemption? The same Maldonatus telleth vs also a∣nother

respect wherin Christ is said as touching his God∣head to be inferior to the Father, e 1.6 not as touching nature of substance, but relation of originall and beginning. Wherein he is not alone, but the Greek Fathers who most vehemently impugned Arius the Heretike, yet take part with him, as f 1.7 Sixtus Senensis testifieth, and citeth to that purpose Ori∣gen, Cyrill, Chrysostom and Basil, and of the Latine Fa∣thers Hilary, some of these, and beside them g 1.8 Athanasius and h 1.9 Tertullian in that sense expounding of the diuine na∣ture the words of Christ, i 1.10 The Father is greater than I. Now if in this meaning Caluin should haue said as is se∣condly alleged, that the Father holdeth the first ranke of ho∣nour and power, and the Sonne the second; in which sort Ter∣tullian also saith, that k 1.11 the Sonne hath the second degree, and the holy Ghost the third, not meaning it of any disparity of essence, but of the order of the persons, would M. Bishop be no wiser but through Caluins side to wound so learned a Iesuit as Maldonatus, yea and so many Fathers both Greek and Latine, and at once to bring them all within the compasse of Atheisme? But thou must vnderstand gentle Reader, that M. Bishop very perfidiously abuseth thee in this citation; the words of Caluin being spoken of the manhood of Christ being aduanced to sit at the right hand of God. l 1.12 Christ saith he, is said to sit at the right hand of the Father, because being constituted the highest king, in his name to gouerne the world, he obtaineth a seat of honour and power as it were second or next to God. M. Bishop I trow vnderstan∣deth the Articles of the Creed, and thereby knoweth who it is that is said to sit at the right hand of God. There follow∣eth next Melancton, who disputing against Stancarus, for that he held Christ according to his manhood only to bee our Mediator, though hee vse not expressy the words

which M. * 1.13 Bishop hath set down, yet acknowledgeth and defendeth that Christ according to his diuine nature was sent of the Father, and submitted himselfe in obedience to the Father to performe the office of Mediation betwixt God and man, but yet so as that he excepteth out of Cyril, that m 1.14 this sending and obeying doe not take away from the Son equality of power with the Father, because they are not mat∣ters concerning state of nature, but only arbitrary designe∣ment of will. Surely amongst men in society and equality a man may be sent and may yeeld himselfe to be sent and imploied by the rest without derogation to his equality with the rest. As Peter and Iohn were n 1.15 sent by the Apo∣stles to Samaria, and yet M. Bishop will not admit that ther∣fore Peter was inferior to the rest of the Apostles. And if he will not grant that the Son of God, the second person in Trinity did in some sort submit himselfe to doe seruice to the Father, let him tell vs how he is called in Scripture ac∣cording to his diuine nature, o 1.16 The Angell of the Lord. Surely to be an Angell, that is to say, a Messenger, is in some sort to be a subiect or minister. Seeing Christ therfore the second person of the Godhead hath taken vpon him to be the Lords Angell to declare the messages of God to men, let him shew vs how it may be auoided but that he hath in some sort taken vpon him subiection or seruice to the Fa∣ther. Nay let him tell vs how it standeth that the Syrmian Councel saith, that p 1.17 the Sonne in the creating of all things did obey the Father; and that we doe not equall the Sinne to the Father, but vnderstand him to bee subiect, and that Hi••arie saith, q 1.18 that by yeelding obedience he is subiect to the Father, who notwithstanding spake these things amidst their de∣finitions and resolutions against the Arian Heretikes. Yea let him tell vs how Christ saith; r 1.19 I came downe from Hea∣uen not to doe mine own will, but the will of the Father that hath sent me: not speaking as in the nature of man, as s 1.20 Tertullian

rightly argueth, but as in the person of the sonne of God, according to which it was that he was sent & came down from heauen, and abased himselfe to doe his Fathers will in taking vpon him the nature of man. And heereupon Maldonatus the Iesuit aforesaid, truly obserueth, t 1.21 that Christ indeed did not his own will, but the will of his Father; but he did it voluntarily and willingly, not by constraint; and therefore that it followeth not that he was inferior to the Fa∣ther. As he did his Fathers will, so and no otherwise was he subiect and obedient to the Father. But that doing of his Fathers will being voluntarily vndertaken, argueth no es∣sentiall minority or subiection in the Son. Therefore nei∣ther doth the same follow of his being so far foorth subiect and obedient to the Father. And so Hilary briefly resol∣ueth; u 1.22 subiection of piety is no diminution of essence, neither doth office of deuotion put nature out of kinde. He is subiect to the Father both by seruice and by name, but yet so, as that sub∣iection of name testifieth a propriety of naturall and no way dif∣ferent essence. And this point the Apostle S. Paul manife∣steth when he saith, that x 1.23 Christ being in the forme of God, and thinking it no robbery to be equall with God, yet abased himselfe and tooke on him the forme of a seruant, and was made like vnto men. Where when he thus expresseth who it was that abased himselfe, he that was in the forme of God, and whereto hee abased himselfe, to take vpon him the forme of a seruant, he signifieth plainely that in the forme of God he, as it were, y 1.24 stooped downe voluntarily to take the nature of man, thereby to doe the office of mediation betwixt God and man, not forgoing or impeaching the forme of God, but content in that wherein hee owed no seruice to become a seruant and to doe that seruice vnto God. And to this purpose Cyrill vrgeth those other words of the same Apostle, that z 1.25 Christ being rich, for our sakes became poore, for how shall we vnderstand it that Christ became poore? Shal we say of Christ as man, that of rich he became poore? That cannot be, because the manhood of Christ was rather

enriched and infinitely dignified and honoured by being ioined vnto God. Shall we say that the Godhead of Christ became poore simply in it selfe? Neither may we say so, be∣cause the Godhead in it selfe is immutable and not subiect to any change. It remaineth therefore as Cyril concludeth, that a 1.26 Christ as God, the Sonne of the Father, became poore in being made man and vndergoing the condition of a seruant, that is, of a man. Now then, as Christ according to his Godhead became poore, not simply as God, but as God incarnate and made man, so he became also subiect and obedient, a minister and seruant to the Father as God in man, the body and manhood of Christ being b 1.27 the instrument, as Athana∣sius calleth it, wherein and whereby God the Sonne of God wrought whatsoeuer was needfull to reconcile vs vn∣to God. And thus doth the Apostle say, that c 1.28 God pur∣chased the Church with his owne blood, that d 1.29 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, not as by communi∣cation of proprieties, to affirme of one nature that which simply belongeth to the other, but to note the act of the whole person in the offering of that sacred blood for the redemption of mankind. Therefore M. Iewel and M. Fulke and we all doe rightly affirme, that Christ neither as God only nor as man only, but as God and man, offered sa∣crifice both to himselfe, as Cyrill speaketh, and to the Father. Otherwise how should the Apostle say, that f 1.30 by his eternall spirit he offered himselfe to God? If by his eternall spirit, then it was not the act of the manhood only; or if it were done only by the manhood, it could not be said to be done by his eternall spirit. But this matter is briefely resolued by Cyrill, who amongst other propositions, set downe against the Nestorian Heretikes and their fauorites, setteth downe this: g 1.31 The holy Scripture teacheth that the high Priest and e 1.32

Apostle of our profession offered himselfe for a sweet smelling sauour vnto God: if any man therefore say that the word which is of God being made flesh and man for vs, is not our high Priest and Apostle, but as it were another from him properly or seue∣rally the man borne of woman, accursed be he. And againe; h 1.33 If any man doe not confesse that the word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, was made the first borne of the dead, according as he is life, and giueth life as God, accursed be he. Whereby he giueth to vnderstand, that the person of Christ in the worke of our redemption is not to be diuided, but what we beleeue concerning Christ in the flesh, we are to beleeue that God did and suffered the same in the flesh; not as heereby to attribute to the word in it selfe either suffering or death, but to signifie that it was the act of whole Christ both God and man to offer himselfe by suffering in that nature wherein he was capable of suf∣fering. And surely by that whole disputation of Cyrill approoued by the Ephesine Councell, and inserted into it, it most plainely appeareth that that parting of the God∣head and the manhood whereby Christ is made our high priest and Mediatour only according to his manhood, sa∣uoureth more strongly of the heresie of Nestorius than they would haue it seeme that are the defenders of it. Certaine it is that Bellarmine in that point affirmeth nothing that was not acknowledged by Theodoret and those other par∣ty-Nestorians against whom Cyrill there disputeth, and his arguments and reasons make as much against him and the Councell as they doe against vs. And as for those things which M. Bishop here vrgeth, that to be a Mediatour is to be a suppliant, and that to pray and to offer sacrifice is to ac∣knowledge him to whom he so doth, to be his better, and that something lieth in his power to doe, which the other of himselfe cannot doe, but by sute must obteine of him, these are in ef∣fect but the weapons of those Nestorians, & of the Arians, the one seeking thereby to dissolue the vnion of the person of Christ, the other to destroy the Godhead of Christ. But

let him take the answers that Cyril giueth to such obiecti∣ons: i 1.34 Some man will say, it is base and vnwoorthy of God to weepe or cry, to be afraid of death, to pray that the cup may passe from him, to be a Priest. Verily so say I also that these things are base to the excellency of the diuine nature and glory, but in these things wee will behold the pouerty which of his owne accord he tooke vpon him for our sakes. If this base∣nesse of humbling himselfe seeme amisse to thee, wonder the rather at the loue of the Sonne towards vs. For that which thou saiest is base, that did he for thy sake. And againe, k 1.35 Thou saiest it is vnfitting for God the Word according to man to of∣fer sacrifice as touching the person. Then take away the per∣son; deny flatly that there is any incarnation of the Word by meanes whereof he is also named the high Priest. To be short, be questioneth with his aduersarie in this sort: l 1.36 How dost thou say that the Word which is of God is vnited vnto him that is of the seed of Dauid, if thou attribute Priesthood to him onely who is of the seed of Dauid? If there be true vnion, saith he, then there are not two, but Christ of both is vnder∣stood onely one: leauing it to be consequent which he after∣wards concludeth, that m 1.37 we are to attribute all to Christ as one, not making him our high Priest, as man onely and not as God, but acknowledging the whole person God and man, to be our high Priest and mediatour vnto God. The Arians also as I haue said, laboured by the same obiections to ouerthrow the Godhead of Christ. That the Son was inferiour to the Father they would prooue for that Christ saith of himselfe, that hee came to doe the will of his Father. But Athanasius answereth, that n 1.38 God fulfilleth the willer de∣sire of them that feare him, and yet this is no abasing of him. The same they inferred because Christ is brought in ^o ask∣ing

or requesting of the Father. p 1.39 The heretike affirmeth, saith Athanasius, that he that requesteth, is inferiour to him that giueth. What wilt thou answer then, saith hee, if God re∣quest? q 1.40 And now O Israel, saith Moses, what doth the Lord thy God * 1.41 aske or request of thee, but that thou feare him. He leaueth it to be vnderstood, that God notwithstand∣ing doth not thereby become inferior to vs. Sundry other like examples might be alleaged: but in briefe I answer as before, that the things which in this behalfe we affirme concerning Christ, doe no more bereaue him of equality with God, then a King by vouchsafying of his Princely grace to doe some act of speciall office to a subiect, doth thereby diuest himselfe of the maiestie of a king. And this the ancient Fathers saw well, who though they make the manhood of Christ the subiect and matter wherein and whereby this mediation is performed, and in that respect doe sometimes referre it onely to the manhood, yet doe otherwise acknowledge that the acting and effecting thereof, belongeth to the whole person both God and man. Therefore Ambrose saith, that r 1.42 on both parts he is a mediatour; that s 1.43 both by his Godhead and by his manhood, he is the mediatour betwixt God and man. So saieth Austin, that t 1.44 whole Christ both God and man, the word, the soule and the flesh being one Christ is made our mediatour. Yea and out of the very nature of a Mediatour it followeth that he must be so vnderstood, not onely as man, but as God also. For u 1.45 it belongeth to a Mediatour, saith Chrysostome, to be partaker of them both, betwixt whom hee is a media∣tour: therefore because Christ was a mediatour betwixt two natures, he was to be partaker of them both. x 1.46 He is not onely God, saith Theophylact, for then men could not haue admitted him to be intercessour for them; neither is he onely

man, because hee was to deale with God. Hence therefore doth he take an argument, to prooue that Christ is God, y 1.47 because hee is made an intercessour or mediatour. And in the same sort Theodoret reasoneth against Arius the here∣tike: z 1.48 If Christ be not partaker of the substance of his Fa∣ther, how is he then a mediatour? Now if a mediatour, as a mediatour must bee God, why doth M. Bishop with his fellowes beare vs in hand that Christ as he is God is not a mediatour? Why are they so fond to make our assertion an inducement of Arianisme, when they see the Fathers to haue made it a ground to dispute against Arius? for the auouching of the Godhead of Christ in this person of a mediatour did Melancthon vse those other words (if at least he did vse them, for I find them not) which M. Bishop taxeth; There must needs be in him somewhat of the diuine nature. Where because he saith somewhat, M. Bishop in∣ferreth; some other thing then belike was wanting. Full wisely I warrant you. But I pray let vs aske him, when Thomas Aquinas said that a 1.49 Christ the Mediatour was like to God and man in respect that he was both God and man because the Mediatour must haue somewhat of both the extreames which are God and man, did he meane thereby that Christ had a part of the Godhead, and wanted a nother part; or a part of the nature of man and not the whole? If not, how little doth M. Bishops head serue him to conceiue there a parti∣tion meant of the essence of God where there is only inten∣ded a distinction of two natures in one Christ? Melan∣cthons meaning is plaine, that as Christ had somewhat whereby he was truly man, so he had somwhat also wher∣by he was truly God; euen the perfect nature and substance both of God and man. As for his last cauill, that we expound the texts of Scripture vsed by the Fathers against the Arians in the same sort as the Arians did, because it nameth no man, it deserueth no answer. His maister Bellarmine from whose dunghill it is that he gathereth al his mucke, accuseth Eras∣mus in that respect, but I hope M. Bishop will not say that

Erasmus was a Protestant. Whatsoeuer he was, or howso∣euer he faulted therein, so little is he approoued or followed by the Protestants, as that Beza in b 1.50 sundry places profes∣sedly disputeth against him, and rechargeth against the Arians those places from which he seemeth to discharge them.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Christ as God how e∣quall and how inforior to the Father.
• a 1.2

  Foelix Crucig. inter epist. Cal∣uin. 311. Credi∣mus patrem omnipotentem; filium ei per omnia aequalem quoad naturam essentiam vel deitatem: mi∣norem eo tan∣tum quòd cum in forma Dei esset seipsum ex∣inaniuit, seu vt vno verbo com∣plectamur rati∣one officij medi∣ationis.
• b 1.3

  Caluin epist. ad Polonos in∣teropuscula. In∣scitè ex Media∣toru titulo in∣fertur Christum patre esse mino∣rem quando haec optime inter se cohaerent vnige∣nitum dei fili∣um eundem & vnius cum patre essentiae fuisse deum & tamen fuisse quasi in∣ter deum & creaturas, &c.
• c 1.4

  Bellar. in pre∣fat. ad controv. 2. general. de Christo, &c.
• d 1.5

  Maldonat. in Ioan. c. 14. Minor non quoad diuinitatis inequalitatem, sed quoad munus & voluntatem redemptionis.
• e 1.6

  Ibid. Non quoad naturam substantiae sed quoad relatio∣nem originis.
• f 1.7

  Sixt. Senens. biblioth sanct. lib. 6. annot. 1705. Obser∣uandum est Graecos patres non reformida∣re hanc locutio∣nem qua filius patre minor asseritur, non substantia qui∣dem sed origine: iuxta quam ra∣tionem frequen∣tissimè apud Grecos Theolo∣gos pater dici∣tur principij dignitate autho∣ritate & maie∣state antecellere filium.
• g 1.8

  Athanas. con. Arian. orat. 2. pater maior non magnitudine aut aetate, sed quia filius ex illo ortum habe∣bat.
• h 1.9

  Tertul. adu. prax. pater filio maior dumalius quigenerat, alius qui generatur, &c.
• i 1.10

  Iohn 14.28.
• k 1.11

  Tertul. vt suprae. vt tertium gradum osten∣deret in Paracleto, sicut & nos secundum in filio propter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 obseruationem.
• l 1.12

  Caluin. in Mat. cap. 26. ver. 64. Dicitur Christus ad dexteram patris sedere quia rex summus constitutus qui eius nomine mundum gubernet, quasi secundam ab eo honoris & imperijs sedem obtinet.
• * 1.13

  Christ our ••••diator as he is both God & man.
• m 1.14

  Melanct. Re∣spon••. a••l contro. stanc. M ssio & obedientia non tollunt equali∣tatem potentiae, ••••ut expresse Cyrilius inquit.
• n 1.15

  Acts ••.14.
• o 1.16

  Gen. 6.7.13 I••d. 13.3.22.
• p 1.17

  H••lar. desy∣nod. ex contil. syrmiens. st quis Christum filium dei obsecutum patr••m creati∣one omnium non confitetur, ana∣••••em. ••sit. Et pauio post Non exaequamus pa∣tri filium sed subi••ctum in∣te••iginius.
• q 1.18

  Hila. ibid Non coaequatur filius patridum su••ditus per obedientiae obsequelam est.
• r 1.19

  Ioh. 6.38
• s 1.20

  Tertul. de Tri. Descendit dei verbum quod ihi fuit, &c. veniendo inde vnde homo venire non potuit, deum se ostendit venisse.
• t 1.21

  Maldonat. in Mat cap. 6. fecit quidem Christus non suam sed patris volunta∣tem, sed idip∣sum sponte & volunt 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sua fecit: ita{que} non sequitur eum esse ••••norem patre.
• u 1.22

  Hilar. d•• syn. pietatis subie∣ct••o non est es∣sentiae diminu∣tione•• religionis officium degene∣rem facit natu∣ram & patri & obsequio subiectus & no∣mine: ita ta∣men vt subiectio nominis propri∣etatem natura∣lis at{que} indisse∣rentis testetur essentiae.
• x 1.23

  Phil 2 6.
• y 1.24

  Tert. de Trin. Authoritas di∣u••m verbi ad sus••piendum h••minem inte∣rim conquies∣cens ne•• se suis viril us exer∣cens deijcit se ad tempus at{que} de∣ponit du••a ho∣minem sert quem suscepit.
• z 1.25

  2. Cor. 8.9.
• a 1.26

  Cyril. resp. ad Theodoret. ana∣them. 10. Quo∣inodo pauper factus est? Quia cùm esset deus natura & filius de••ac patris sa∣ctus est homo, &c. seruilem{que} mensuram sub∣ijt, hoc est, hu∣manam, is qui in forma dei & patris est.
• b 1.27

  Athana apud Cyril, vt supra anat. 11. si vide∣amus eum quasi per instrumen∣tum sut corporis diuino modo o∣perantem vel dicentem, cog∣noscamus quòd deus existens omnia operetur.
• c 1.28

  Act. 20.28.
• d 1.29

  2. Cor. 5.19.
• f 1.30

  Heb. 9.14.
• g 1.31

  Ibid. Pontifi∣cem & Aposto∣lum confessionis nostrae factum esse Christum diuina dicit scriptura obtulisse{que} se pro nobis in odorem suauitatis deo ac patri, siquis igitur Pontificem & Apostolū nostrum factum dicit non ipsum quod ex des est verbum & caro & homo nobis similis est factum, sed vt alium ab ipso proprie (seorsim) hominem ex muliere, &c. anathema sit.
• e 1.32

  Cyril. vt suprà anathem. 10. Non alteri cele∣brat immolati∣enis modum sed magis sibi & patri.
• h 1.33

  Ibid anath. 12. si quis non confitetur verbum dei carne esse pas∣sum, carne cru∣cifixum, & mortem carne gustasse, primo∣genitum ex mortuis factum quemadmodum vita est & vi∣uificans sicut deus, anathe∣ma sit.
• i 1.34

  Cyril. vt supra Anath. 11. Di∣cet quispiam parum & in∣dignum esse deo verbo plorare, mortem timere, poculum depre∣cari, pontificem esse. Vti{que} sic dix er••m & ego ipse quòd emi∣nentiae diuinae naturae ac glo∣riae parua sunt haec sed in his contemplabi∣mur pauperta∣tem quam pro nobis sponte tu∣lit. Quando tibi molesta videtur ignobilitas ista exinanitionis, admirare ma∣gis dilectionem filij erga nos. Quod tu parum esse dixisti, hoc sp••nte fecit pro∣pter te.
• k 1.35

  Ibid. Incon∣gruum esse dicis deo verbo hu∣manitus sacrfi∣cium ministra∣repro ••er per∣sonam Ergo au∣fer personam, nega constanter factam incarnationem verbi propter quam nominatus est etiam pontif••x.
• l 1.36

  Ibid. Quomodo vnitum dicis ei qui exs••mine Dauid est ex deo verbum sisol•• qui ex sentine D••uid est Pontificatum attribuis? si vera est vnto, non duo vti{que} sunt sed vnas & so∣lus ex am••obus intelligitur Christus.
• m 1.37

  Ibid. in fine: Ipsion••ma tribuimus tanqu••m rni.
• n 1.38

  Athanas. de co. essentia patris & fi ij, &c.
• p 1.39

  Ibid. Affirmat haereticus mino∣rem esse poten∣tem datore, si igitur patrem petentem inue∣rias, quid hic respenacas? Et nunc Israel quid dominus tuus à te petit, &c.
• q 1.40

  Deut. 10.12.
• * 1.41

  The He∣brew word is the same as Psal. 2.8.
• r 1.42

  Ambros. in 1. Tim. ca. 2. vt ex vtro{que} esset me∣diator.
• s 1.43

  Idem in Heb. 7. In aeternum diuinitate & humanitate mediator inter deum & homi∣nes semper vi∣uens est &c.
• t 1.44

  Aug. Orat. cont. Iudaeos, Pagan & Ari∣an. c. 8. Nobis mediator sa∣ctus est homo totus & deus, verbum, amma, cara, vnus Christus.
• u 1.45

  Chrysost. in 1. Tim. hom. 7. Id mediatoris est proprium vtrorum{que} participem fieri quorum suerit mediator. &c. Quia duarum naturarum medius suit Christus, ambarum oportuit esse participem.
• x 1.46

  Theo∣phylact in 1. Tim. c. 2. Nequaquam purus est deus; ne{que} enim homines hunc excepissent qui es∣set intercessor futurus: nec simplex homo quippe qui deum esset allocuturus.
• y 1.47

  Ibid. Quòd deus sit filius li∣quet ex eo quia & conciliator fit & mediator effectus.
• z 1.48

  Theodoret. in 1. Tim. cap. 2. si vt vult Arius filius patris substantiae non est particeps, quomodo est in∣tercessor?
• a 1.49

  Tho. Aquin. in 1 Tim. cap. 2. lect. 2. Christus mediator est si∣milis vtri{que} ex∣tremo, scilicet deo & homini inquantum de∣us & homo, quia medium debet habere a∣liquid de vtro{que} extremorum & haec sunt homo & deus.
• b 1.50

  See Beza. Annotat. in Coloss. 1.15. Philip. 2.6. 1. Tim. 3.16 Tit. 2.13.