on his vesture, and on his thigh, a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

What do you allege against these testimonies?

As to the first, the divine nature of Christ cannot be inferred from the apostle's styling him the "one Lord;" for he clearly distinguishes him from the one God, whom he calls the Father; and whom alone I have already stated to be that one God. Again, the apostle shows by the expressions he uses respecting him, "by whom are all things," that he is not the one God; since it appears, as I have before proved, that this preposition BY (per) designates not the primary but the secondary cause, which can by no means be affirmed of him who is the one God. And although the Scriptures sometimes say of the Father, that "all things are by him," yet this is to be understood of the Father in a sense different from that in which it is understood of Christ: since no one can, as his superior, do any thing by or through the Father. For this is asserted of the Father, not because any person does any thing by or through him, but because all things are first ordained by his counsel and also accomplished by his power, although he may sometimes employ other intermediate or secondary causes. But this is affirmed of Christ because some one else, namely, God, performs all things by him, as I have already shown, and as appears from this very passage; since the declaration "BY WHOM are all things" (per quem omnia) is opposed to "OF WHOM are all things" (ex quo omnia), which designates the primary efficient cause. I will not re

peat,

peat, what has already been stated more than once, that the expression ALL THINGS refers to the subject matter of discourse, as the prefixing of the article in the Greek text evinces. Now the apostle is treating of all those things which pertain to christians, as not to notice the term FATHER, and the phrase the ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST-is demonstrated by the words To us, so often repeated, and which can designate no other persons but christians. Wherefore the divine nature of Christ cannot be proved from this testimony 37. With respect to the second testimony, as this speaks of the person who was crucified, it is evident that the divine nature contended for cannot be proved from it, since this could not be asserted of one who, in consequence of that nature, was God, but only of a man; who is styled the "Lord of Glory," that is, the GLORIOUS LORD, because he was by God crowned with glory and honour. For Christ is described by these terms, not so much because he was actually such at the time of his crucifixion, as because he was so when the apostle thus designates him: though at the time of his crucifixion also he was the "Lord of Glory" in so far as he was destined for celestial glory. In relation to the third testimony, as it treats of one who was a lamb and had a robe, and whom the same writer distinctly states to have been slain, and

37 That the expression ALL THINGS (TT) is hardly ever used in the Scriptures in an unlimited sense, may be seen in the Bibliotheca Ravanellis. So also, in this passage, the word must necessarily admit of limitation; otherwise God, the Father, would be BY CHRIST.-B. WISSOWATIUS.

to have redeemed us by his blood, things which do not comport with a being who is by nature GOD,-it is evident that the divine nature of Christ cannot be established by it. But all the titles which are attributed to Christ in these testimonies denote the supreme authority which God has given to him over all things.

What testimonies of Scripture may be adduced for Faith in Christ, and ascribing divine honour to him?

Christ himself says (John xiv. 1), "Ye believe in God, believe also in me." And John v. 22, 23, “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father." Also Philippians ii. 9, 10, 11, "Wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father."-To these, other passages might be added.

What answer do you make to these testimonies ?

In respect to the first, so far is it from proving Christ to be by nature God, that it is evident it establishes quite the contrary: for Christ makes here a distinction between himself and the one God. As to what our adversaries affirm, that faith is not to be placed in any one besides God; this is in another place (John xii. 44) explained by Christ, when he says,

"He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." Whence it is evident that Christ did not claim for himself faith in the sense in which it is due to God. For that faith is due to God alone, which terminates in him, and has respect to him as the original author of all things: but it is evident from the cited verse that such a faith is not to be attributed to Christ. For we therefore believe in Christ, because he has promised to us supreme felicity, having been sent by God for this purpose; and because he received from God the power of making us happy, and was charged with this office. So that our faith in Christ is in this manner directed to God himself as its ultimate object. To this purpose is the testimony of Peter (1 Epist. i. 21), "Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God."

But our opponents allege from Jeremiah (xvii. 5) "Cursed be the man who trusteth in man?"

To this I reply, that it is not said absolutely, "Cursed be the man who trusteth in man," but who so trusts that he "maketh flesh his arm;" that is, who rests his hope on the strength of a mortal man, and not on the divine spirit or energy which is discernible in that man. Wherefore MAN is to be understood here, as he is wont to be, according to the mortal nature of men only, without any portion of divine energy and power; for whoever has had these communicated to him by God is placed so far beyond and above man. For this is all that is to be under

stood

stood by the term FLESH, the following words being added, "and whose heart departeth from the Lord." But we who place our hope in Christ, do not "make flesh our arm;" since Christ, although mortal, was endowed with the divine spirit, and is now made a living spirit. Neither does our heart "depart from the Lord;" for by trusting in Christ we trust in God, and thus our heart approaches towards God instead of departing from him.

What answer do you make to the other testimonies which speak of the divine honour of Christ?

As all the testimonies which speak of the divine honour of Christ do also most distinctly speak of a divine honour given and granted to him, at a particular period, and for a certain reason, it is evident, that it cannot be proved from them that he has a divine nature. Our adversaries indeed oppose to this that passage of Isaiah (chap. xlii. 8)" My glory will I not give to another." But I answer, that what was intended by the term ANOTHER is sufficiently evident; for it is immediately added, "neither my praise to graven images." God therefore speaks in this place of those who have no communion with him, and to whom if any glory or honour were ascribed, it would not redound to him. Whence also it appears that the words "I will not give" signify nothing more than "I will not permit;" and not absolutely, "I will not of my own accord communicate to any one of my supreme glory." For who does not know that God will communicate of his glory to a person who depends upon him, and is subordinate to him? For by