Grotius is perfectly agreed with our catechists, and uses their very words in the exposition of this place; but that also hath been con- sidered, and his exposition called to an account formerly.
The next testimonies insisted on they produce in answer to this question : —
Q. What scriptures affirin that Christ hath all things that the Father hath?
A. John xvi. 15, xvii. 10.
Q. What sayest thou to these?
A. We have above declared that the word omnia, " all things," is almost always referred to the subject-matter; wherefore from these places that which they intend can no way be proved. The subject-matter, chap, xvi., is that which the Holy Spirit was to reveal to the apostles, which belonged to the kingdom of Christ ; and, chap, xvii., it is most apparent that he treateth of his disciples, whom God gave him, whom he calls his. Moreovei", seeing that whatever Christ hath, he hath it by gift from the Father, and not of himself, it hence appeareth that he can by no means have a divine nature, when he who is God by nature hath all things of himself. I
' " Ubi vero scriptura eum omnia quae Pater habeat habere asserit ? — John xvi. 15, Christus ait, Ovinia quce Pater habet mea sunt; et infra capite xvii. 10, Mea omnia tua sunt, et tua mea.
" Quid tu ad hsec ? — Vox omnia, ad subjectam materiam ut superius aliquoties de- monstravimus fere semper refertur ; quare ex ejiismodi locis non potest uUo mode quod volant effici. Materia vero subjecta, cap. xvi., est, id nimirura, quod Spiritus Sanctus apostolis ad Christi regnum spectans revelaturus erat ; et xvii cap. constat apertissime agi de discipulis ipsius Jesu quos ijisi Deus doderat, unde eos etiam suos vocat. Pra^terea, cum quicquid Christus habeat, habeat Patris dono, non autem a seipso, hinc apparet, ipsum divinam naturam habere nullo mode posse, cum natura Deus omnia a seipso habeat."
TESTIMONIES TO THE DEITY OF CHRIST VINDICATED. 313
Of these texts the consideration will soon be despatched. 1. John xvi. 15, Christ saith, "All things that the Father hath are mine: there- fore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall diow it unto you." Now, if all things that the Father hath are his, then the divine na- ture is his, for the Father hath a divine nature. But they say this "all things" is to be expounded according to the subject-matter treated of; that is, only what the Holy Ghost was to reveal to the apostles. Let, then, the expression be expounded according to the subject- matter. Christ renders a reason why he said that the Spirit should take of his : even because what he had of the Father he had also of him, all that the Father hath being his. Now, it was the knowledge of all truth, and all things to come, and all things concerning the kingdom of Christ, that he was thus to show to the apostles. But look, whence the Holy Ghost hath his knowledge, thence he hath his essence; for those things do not really differ in a divine nature. The Spirit, then, having his knowledge of the Son, hath also his essence of the Son, as he hath of the Father. And by this it is most evidently confirmed, that among the " all things" that the Father hath, which the Son hath, his divine nature is also, or else that could be no reason why he should say that the Spirit should take of his, and show to them.
2. John xvii. 10, a reason is rendered why those who are Christ's are also God's, and to be in his care; that is, because all his things (rd ilia r:d\iroi) were the Father's, and all the Father's his. It is not, then, spoken of the disciples; but is a reason given why the disciples are so in the love of God, because of the unity of essence which is be- tween Father and Son, whence all the Son's things are the Father's, and all the Father's are the Son's.
3. Christ's having all things not from himself, but by gift from the Father, may be understood two ways. Either it refers to the nature of Christ as he is God, or to the person of Christ as he is the Son of God. In the first sense it is false; for the nature of Christ being one with that of the Father hath all things, without concession, gift, or grant made to it, as the nature. But as the person of the Son, in which regard he receives all things, even his nature, from the Father, so it is true (those words being expounded as above) ; but this only proves him to be the Son of God, not at all that he is not God.
Grotius on the first place, Tlavra osa, 'iytt 6 'TrccTrip, s/xd iari' — " Etiam prsescientia et decreta de rebus futuris, quatenus ecclesiara spectant." Did he truly intend what the first words do import, we should judge ourselves not a little beholding to him. The fore- knoiuledge of God is not in any who is not God, nor his decrees. The first is an eternal property of his nature; the latter are eternal acts of his will. If Christ have these, he must have the nature of God. But the last words evidently take away what the first seem to