DEITY OF CHRIST PROVED, ETC. 259
when only one comes, though that one have glory and authority from the other. 6. Christ shall also judge in his own name, and by the laws which, as Lord, he hath given. 7. There is but the same way of coming and appearance of the great God and our Saviour : which if our Saviour come really and indeed, and the great God only be- cause he sends him, the one comes and the other comes not ; which is not, doubtless, they both come.
Grotius agrees with our catechists, but says not one word more for the proof of his interpretation, nor in way of exception to ours, than they say, as they say no more than Socinus against Bellarmine, nor he much more than Erasmus before him, from whom Grotius also borrowed his comment of Ambrose, which he urges in the exposition of this place ; which, were it not for my peculiar respect to Erasmus, I would say were not honestly done, himself having proved that comment under tlie name of Ambrose to be a paltry, corrupted, de- praved, foisted piece: but Grotius hath not a word but what hath been spoken to.
The next testimony mentioned is Rev. i. 8, " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty;" to which is added that of chap. iv. 8, " Holy, holy, holy. Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come."
Q. What sayest thou to this ?
A. This place they say refers to Christ, because they suppose none is said to come but only Christ, for he is to come to judge the quick and dead. But it is to be noted, that that word which they have rendered " to come," may equally be ren- dered '•' is to be," as John xvi. 13, where the Lord says of the Spirit, which he promised to the apostles, that he should " show them things to come ; " and Acts .wiii. 21, we read that the feast day was "to be," in which place the Greek word is Ipx'/^'-^'s- Lastly, Who is there that knows not that seeing it is said before, " which was, and is," this last which is added may be rendered " to be," that the words in every part may be taken of existence, and not in the two former of existence, in the latter of coming ? Neither is there any one who doth not ob- serve that the eternity of God is here described, which comprehendeth time past, present, and to come. But that which discovers this gross error is that which we read in Rev. i. 4, 5, " Grace lo to you, and peace, from him which is, which was, and which is to come ; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness ; " — from which testimony it appears that Jesus Christ is quite another from him which is, and was, and is to be, or, as they think, is to come.'
1 " Quid ad scxtum respondes ? — Eum vero locum propterea ad Christum rcfei'unt, quod arbitrentur neminem venturum, nisi Christum ; is enim vcnturus est ad judi- candum vivos et mortuos. Verum tenendum est, earn voeem quam illi reddidere ven- turus est, reddi oeque posse fulurus est, ut Johan. xvi. 13, ubi Dominus ait de Spiritu, qucm apostolis promittebat, quod illis esset futura annunciaturus ; et Act. xviii. 21, ubi Icgimus, diem festum futurum: in quibus locis duobus, vox Grceca est £^;^;o^£vaf. Delude, quis est qui nesciat, cum prius dictum sit, qui erat, et qui est, et posterius hoc quod addiium est per futurum esse reddi dcbere, et ubique de existentia ca oratio acci- piatur, ct non in prioribus duobus mcmbris de existentia, in postremo de adventu ? Nee est quisquam qui non animadvertat hie describi seternitatera Dei, qune teiiqnis
260 VINDICIiE EVANGELIC.E,
1. There is not one place wliich they have mentioned wherein the ■word here used, kp-x^ming, may not properly be translated "to come;" which they seem to acknowledge at first to be peculiar to Christ. But, 2. These gentlemen make themselves and their disciples merry by persuading them that we have no other argument to prove these words to be spoken of Christ but only because he is s?ad to be 6 sp^o- [livog: which yet, in conjunction with other things, is not without its weight, being as it were a name of the Messiah, Matt. xi. 3, from Gen. xlix. 1 0,^ though it may be otherwise applied. 3. They are no less triumphant, doubtless, in their following answer, that these words describe the eternity of God, and therefore belong not to Christ ; when the argument is, that Christ is God, because, amongst other things, these words ascribe eternity to him. Is tliis an answer to us, who not only believe him, but prove him eternal ? 4. And they are upon the same pin still in their last expression, that these words are as- cribed to the Father, verse 4, when they know that the argument which they have undertaken to answer is, that the same names are ascribed to the Son as to the Father, and therefore he is God equal with him. Their answer is, " This name is not ascribed to Christ, be- cause it is ascribed to the Father." Men must beg when they can make no earnings at work. 5, We confess Christ to be " alius," " another," another person from the Father; not another God, as our catechists pretend.