The Institution of Christian Religion

And with no more trueth do they bring in Tertullian for their defender. For though he be rough sometime and crabbed in his manner of speech, yet doeth he plainly teach the sum of that doctrine that we defend. That is to say, whereas he is the one GOD, yet by disposition and order he is his Word: that there is but one GOD in unity of substance, and yet that the same unity by mystery of orderly distribution is disposed into Trinity, that there are three, not in state, but in degree, not in substance, but in form: not in power, but in order. He sayeth that he defendeth the Son to be a second next to the Father, but he meaneth him to be none other than the Father, but by way of distinction. In some places he sayeth that the Son is visible. But when he hath reasoned on both parts he defineth that he is invisible in so much as he is the Word.

And wyth no more trueth dooe they brynge in Tertulliane for theyr defender. For thoughe he be roughe sometime and crabbed in hys manner of speache, yet doeth he playnlye teache the summe of that doctryne that we defende. That is to saye, whereas he is the one GOD, yet by disposicion and order he is hys Woorde: that there is but one GOD in vnitie of substaunce, and yet that the same vnitie by misterie of orderly distribution is disposed into Trinitie, that there are three, not in state, but in degree, not in substaunce, but in forme: not in power, but in order. He sayeth that he defendeth the Sonne to bee a seconde nexte to the Father, but he meaneth hym to be none other than the Father, but by way of distinction. In some places he sayeth that the Sonne is visible. But when he hath reasoned on both partes he defyneth that he is inuisible in so muche as he is the Worde.

Finally where he affirmeth that the Father is determined in his own person, he proveth himself far from that error which we confute. And though he doth acknowledge none other God but the Father, yet in the next piece of his writing expounding himself, he saith, that he speaketh not exclusively in respect of the Son, because he denieth that the Son is any other God beside the Father, and that therefore their sole government is not broken by distinction of Person. And by the perpetual course of his purpose it is easy to gather the meaning of his words. For he disputeth against Praxeas, that though God be distinguished into three persons, yet are there not made many gods nor the unity torn in sunder. And because by the imagination of Praxeas Christ could not be God, but he must also be the Father, therefore he so much laboureth about the distinction. Whereas he calleth the Word and the Spirit a portion of the whole: although it be a hard kind of speech, yet is it excusable, because it is not referred to the substance, but only showeth the disposition and order that belongeth only to the Persons, as Tertullian himself witnesseth. And hereof hangeth that. Now many Persons thinkest thou there are, O most froward Praxeas, but even so many as there be names? And so a little after that, they may believe the Father and the Son each in their names and persons. Hereby I think may be sufficiently confuted their impudency that seek to beguile the simple with colour of Tertullians authority.