both a nature a person but the manhood is not of it selfe anie other thing than a nature which as they speake in the scholes is become a person There is but one sonne of God as there is but one Christ and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe so that now there are not two sonnes to wit one eternall and naturall or of the substance and being of the father and another created and adopted but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to himself so that also there are not two Christs but one onelie God and man together from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke Now we learne what we may call the person of Christ What the person of Christ is to wit the son of God manifested in the flesh Let vs come nowe to the word vnion for vniting is that whereby these two natures to wit the godhead or the person of the word and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What vnion or vniting is that is the coupling or ioyning together of two thinges or more in such sort that of those many things commyng together some one certaine thing is compounded or made There are diuers sorts of vniting And there are diuers kinds of vnitings for sometimes nature is vnited with the forme or shape sometime an accident with the subiect sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts to establish or make a whole matter Vniting and vnion or vnitie differ much Wherefore vniting is one thing and vnitie or onenesse as a man might saye is an other thing For one or onenesse is not a number neither dooth it necessarily presuppose a number◠except in things compounded but is the beginning of a number Therefore we hold that there is in christ a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person and an vniting of the natures These words are diligently to be marked so much the more bicause the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions troubles in these disputations matters Certainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vniting and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vnitie or onenesse are altogither diuers matters For in the mysterie of the Trinitie there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence and a Trinitie in the persons Againe on the other side there is in Christ an vniting of the natures and an vnitie or onenesse of the person Wherefore the Fathers saide well that in the diuinitie there is not an other thing and an other thing that is to say In the godhead there is but one simple being two thinges for in the diuinitie there is but one onely and most simple essence or being but an other and an other meaning persons For the Father is one an other is the Son and the Holie-ghost is an other The reason is because when we say another we mean the person when wee saye an other thing wee meane the nature Wherefore there is not an other thing in the diuinity for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods In Christ on the other side there is an other thing In Christ there is two natures but not two persons and an other thing because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood and not an other and an other bicause Christ is but one subsistence or being consisting not of two persons but of mans nature being taken which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion or vniting This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting Errors cannot be wel confūted til the personall vnion bee well knowne is called personall vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors wherewith too manie at this present are sicke and infected as we shall wel perceiue when we shall come to the matter it selfe wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God Isaiah 7.14 Matth. 1.23 First Isaiah saieth that this our sauiour is Immanuell that is God with vs. Iohn 1.14 Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie saith that the word became or was made flesh Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 2 1◠when hee saith that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham Therefore the word taking openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn And the word was made flesh and both these laid togither doo also declare how Christ is God with vs and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall vnion is They which haue not interpreted that place of Iohn Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues haue fallen into diuerse errors for some haue expounded it thus the word was made flesh because the word was in sted of the soule vnto the bodie taken that is to say that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie that by that meanes he might become Christ So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule in the sted thereof did substitute the Godhead Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man and not a reasonable soule Tripartit hist lib. 5. cap. 44. lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil epist 74. August lib. Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted this also necessarilie foloweth that except the word had taken the soule vnto it likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person neither could Christ properlie haue suffered that I may let slippe many other most absurd points seeing that the soule properlie is troubled and afflicted Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh a ghost or fantasie and to that purpose haue wrested and writhen the worde similitude or likenes Roman 8.3 in these wordes of Paule God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh c whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had a double name Docitae or Docetae and sprung indeede as some suppose from Simon Magus who helde that Christ came not in the flesh but that hee was Christ They held as the Marcionites did that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost See homil 2. following If these mens opiniōs were true christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus or a Sauiour as indeed one that had not bin born or had suffered for vs. There are othersome who forsaking these errors do notwithstāding fall into others no lesse
absurde and detestable bicause as the Poet saieth while fooles auoid some vices or faults they ru◠into others Nestorius whose heresie what it was is opened before For Nestorius interpreted these wordes the word became flesh after this manner that is to saie the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie and fullie powre foorth the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke The absurditie of the former interpretation Which interpretation if it be true Christ is not God but diuine or as you woulde say god-like or heauenlie and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones yet hee is not to be worshipped neither to be accounted as a Sauiour Whereas notwithstanding Paule attributeth vnto Christ Coloss 2. ◠not the fulnesse of the diuinitie but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead and to be both GOD and man which is a proper title to our sauiour Christ is far different from this to be one that beareth or carrieth God So that Nestorius maketh Christ God not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or person of the word but accounts him as most diuine onely by the presence comming force or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts and beside that loosing or destroying Christs person he maketh him a mere or only man he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood whereas on the other side the fleshe taken is sustained and vpholden in and by the godhead taking it Eutyches heresie confuted Eutyches falling into the contrarie error thought that by these words Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie the word was made or became flesh this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh and for the vniting of the natures he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead that is to say darknesse for light in which matter he was most foulie deceiued for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable it would follow if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth that the word ceased to be God so soone as it was made or became flesh because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod Exod. 4.2 and began to be a serpent Aristotle euen as Aristotle teacheth that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme another is brought in But if the abolishing or taking away be denied that a mingling a mixture may be established whether it be of the natures themselues it is of the Godhead and the manhood or of the properties of either nature then will insue that which is more absurd than the former to wit that Christ is neither God nor man but a certeine third thing compacted of both as the drinke called Mulsum made of wine and honie sodden together is neither wine nor honie alone but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundrie errours But all these errours are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted if the worde of assuming or taking bee rightlie expounded that is by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture Wherefore declare at the length will some saie The personall vnion what it is what is the hypostaticall or personall vnion in Christ It is the taking of mans nature which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature that is to say such a taking or vniting that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting but one subsistence or being onelie in which subsistence that diuine nature that is to saie the person of the worde beareth swaie or ruleth I repeate this againe The hypostaticall or personall vnion is that from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the soule Athanasius Athanasius who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth being chiefly the author thereof A similitude Wherefore as a certaine soule beeing ioyned to a certain bodie maketh one certaine person as Peter Paule Iohn So that eternall worde of the Father tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine that is to saye made the same so proper vnto it selfe that from hence commeth and proceedeth that person whiche is called Christ It appeareth plainelie vnto vs out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn Iohn 10.18 that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort Christ there saith I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake either secretlie in respect of his bodie The place of Iohn 10. expounded which cannot be vnderstood either of the or in respect of his soule or else in respect of his bodie and soule together or else distinctly and plainely in respect of his godhead Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrumēt that which is rather subiect to the soule or Soule alon◠But is it in respect of the soule it self considered by it selfe No indeede for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule and to take vp againe my selfe a soule Verily in the resurrection the soule is not taken vp againe but the bodie therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ either in respect of his bodie onelie or in respect of his soule onely or of them both togither What then is it in respect of them both together No rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing which may be saide to laie downe and to take vp his soule Wherefore Christ so spake according to his deitie and when hee saieth but of the godhead that he hath power to laie downe his life and to take it againe he dooth againe open that mysterie or secret which wee handle For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together are in suche sorte sette out that not two things but one alone is established and that without confusion yet so that the one nature beareth rule And it is meete to be marked that Christ saieth I haue power to laie downe not euery soule but mine owne Wherefore this cannot so be taken nor referred to this end that God should be the lord of all being things but he sheweth that that soule of his which he would lay down take again was otherwise his soule than other mens soules are theirs How then is it Christes soule will some men say Verily by personall vnion The scripture saith
Eutyches affirmed that Christ had but one nature that is to say diuine or of God like as hee was but one person Hee was about the yeere 450 as some think His error was condemned in the Ephesine councell Nestorius deemed our sauior to be God Hee was as some suppose about the yeere 419. so we also say and affirme that Christ consisteth of two natures of which one is the Godhead and the other is the manhood By the way I will speake this thing that we are constreined to vse new speeches that we may auoid new errors or els old ones new polished and trimmed with which manie men at this daie do intangle snare themselues for as in proper place heerafter we will shew there haue risen sprong vp within our remembrance certeine men who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches partlie of Nestorius haue in stead of the word Godhead brought in diuinitie and therfore we are inforced to distinguish Godhead from diuinitie And verilie Paule spake not rashlie where hee saith that the fulnes of the godhead dwelleth in Christ where he vseth also Colloss 2.9 not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is diuinitie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deitie or Godhead The Gretians do in their termes more fitlie expresse religion than the Latinists for the Gretians I know not by what meane do much better and more effectuallie expresse these things than the Latins doo as also in this argument or matter I would more gladlie willingly for plainnesse sake say and vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hominitas if it be lawfull to speake so in Latine or as you would say mans nature or the verie state and condition of mans nature rather than humanitie or manhood Then we perceiue vnderstand that in Christes person there are two substances to wit the Godhead and the manhood Athanasius as we say So speaketh Athanasius in that famous confession of his saieng that he was consubstantiall that is of the selfe same substance with the father and as he himselfe expoundeth it God of the substance of the father and man of the substance of his mother that is of the same substance that we are Afterwards the church vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalcedonensis that is nature We confesse saith the Chalcedon synod that the sonne consisteth of two natures Neither in deed was the terme nature vnaduisedlie vsed or rashlie taken vp albeit it if we would narrowlie consider the propertie of the word the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nature dooth not agree to the diuinitie for it is deriued or commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The reasons moouing the fathers to vse the word Nature to be borne or sprong vp which agreeth well to a thing created but not to God himselfe the creator Wherefore this seemeth to be the reason which led and mooued the fathers to vse this word because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches by whome not onelie the verie natures themselues but also the proprieties of the natures were confounded and shuffled togither Now because Eutyches did mainteine and defend both these errors and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dooth beside the substance comprehend and set out the proprieties also by which proprieties that nature is defined and made to differ from others therefore it seemeth that the fathers vsed the word nature In summe let vs resolue vpon this and set it downe as an vndoubted truth that when we say Christ consisteth of two natures we mean his deitie and humanitie that is his Godhead and mans nature Let vs now come to the word Person Touching the terme person The later writers haue called that person which the former called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vse this word person Now amongst diuines and in their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person are distinguished after this sort Substance and person distinguished vnder the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall number are meant the persons which are in the cōmon essence or being hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto whereby one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person is separated or distinguished from the other and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance God or the Godhead it selfe is signified and meant but the Father the sonne and the Holie spirit are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is persons Neither was it rashlie or vnaduisedlie doone that the church hath vsed the name of person Boetius which Boêtius hath defined thus saieng that it is the communicate propertie of a reasonable substāce because many did throgh very great error freelie indifferentlie vse these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one and the selfe same thing So the Latine writers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or person vsed and said substance euen as the logitians are woont so to call it wherfore that this doubtfulnesse might be auoided the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be vsed Now let vs speake more plainlie what we call person or meane by that name when we intreat of Christ whether that which is as it were compounded of the Godhead taking and of the flesh taken so that if it might be lawfull for vs to diuide Christ into his parts one part of his person should be his Godhead and the other part his manhood Christes manhood cannot properlie be called a person and the cause therof Not so at anie hand for Christ is not said or called a person properlie in respect of his humanitie or manhood but of his diuine nature onelie and yet that not to be separated from his manhood This is the cause or reason thereof If Christes humane nature had beene before it was taken of the diuine nature that is to say of the word there should then be an vnton of two persons and not of two natures and therfore Christ should be a person compact of two persons whervpon would insue manie absurd vnprofitable yea altogither wicked vngodlie matters whereof nowe there is neyther time nor place to speake Therefore thus it must be determined that the diuine nature tooke on it the humane nature forming and fashioning it and euen whiles it was formed and fashioned to haue taken it vnto it selfe that is to saie that Christes humane nature was neuer extant or had beeing but in the Godhead wherfore the humane nature in Christ Christ as hee is God is a person his godhead is a nature as also his manhood is not a person but the humanitie subsisteth and hath his being in this person of the word and therfore Christ is not either in imagination or in deede a double person but one person consisting of two natures For the word is
For though the artificer or handicrafts man doo nothing but by his instrument or toole An apt similitude yet for all that the artificer and his toole are not vnited into one subsistence or being this is my meaning that that it dooth or worketh is not therefore vnited with that by which he dooth or worketh for the dooer and the instrument of doing are two seuerall and distinct things So the smith or carpenter is not vnited with his hammer or mallet Iohn 1.3 Hebr. 1.1 The father created all things through the sonne as the holie scripture witnesseth Now because the father created all things through the sonne shall it therevpon follow that the father and the sonne are personallie vnited togither No verilie For they are and that in deed distinct persons Wherfore neither in the effusion or powring out of powerfull graces nor in the communicating of their powerfull working togither can the personall vnion be well described Let that rather remaine sure that I haue said to wit that that vnion may rightlie be called personall Personall vnion what it is by which it commeth to passe that one person of two natures the natures properties of either nature remaining safe sound becommeth one subsistence or being of which two natures one that is to say the nature assumed or taken hath his being in the assuming or taking nature because if either of them did subsist or had it being of it selfe they should be two persons Moreouer before we take in hand to handle the matter it selfe we must also declare how from this personall vnion insueth that which the old writers and fathers were woont to call communicating of the properties for if both the natures themselues and the properties thereof doo remaine safe and sound then there remaineth likewise vnto either nature these proper attributes or things ascribed vnto them and therefore it should seeme that it cannot be attributed to one nature which is proper and peculiar to the other And yet the scripture so speaketh as when it saith that God suffered Acts. 20.28 yea and we our selues are taught so to speake in the apostles symbole or creed when we say I beleeue in Iesus Christ the onlie sonne of God who was conceiued borne suffered cruâ—ified buried c. Certeine rules are to be obserued for the right vnderstanding of the communicating of proprieties That we may well know and vnderstand this matter we must earne to distinguish the things attribuâ—â— to either nature If we will speake â—â—â—perlie and truelie we say that things attributed to either of the natures must most properlie and in deed be attributed to be same The first rule And this is the first rule Wherefore we affirme that Christ as in respect of his Godhead is the eternall sonne of God is infinite is euerie where is eternall is the creator of all things cannot die is inuisible c. All which things are truelie and properlie attributed tâ— that nature of the son of God which is vâ—ited to flesh Now these things are proper to his humane nature or manhood that it had a beginning that it was conceiued by the Holie ghost that it suffered and at the last rose againe Now from whence commeth this difference Verilie from this that the natures remaine safe sound and vnconfounded least if in the personall vnion they were confounded that which were spoken of ones nature should be attributed to the other And the second rule is this The second rule Certeine things are attributed to or spoken of Christ according to his person and not as in respect of his natures thaâ— is to say such thinges in deede as respâ—ct the person and are attributed to his aâ—d person which cannot yet be spoken sâ—uerallie of either of his natures as for example if I say Christ is the mediator thâ—t word mediator neither to the Godheâ—d by it selfe nor to the manhood by it selâ—e or apart from the Godhead but to that whole person of Christ for he is a mediator according to either nature and â—hese things attributed togither to Christ are personall that is to say respect his whole person which vnlesse we confesse we shall fall into the heresie of Nestorius and his partakers And yet in the meane while this such like are so the works of the whole person Leo. One sort of heretiks had both these names because they held that Christ had but one will one nature and not two wils or two natures answering to his two natures that notwithstanding either of the natures doth distinctlie bring with it his proper peculiar worke to this common deed of redemption mediation c. as Leo teacheth in that his famous and woorthie epistle which also we must know and beleeue least we should fall into that other heresie of the Monothâ—â—its or Monophysits And yet the knoâ— is not vntied nor the matâ—er dispatched Therefore we are principalie to marke yet a certeine other maner oâ— speech touching Christ which as it is tâ—ue in respect of the whole person These darcke termes are expounded afterwards by the author himselfe denâ—minated either of the concrets so it cannâ—t without great impietie be attributed 〈◊〉 either of the natures considered by themselues or in the abstract as for example when we say God to wit the word 〈◊〉 sonne redeemed the church by his bloâ—d so we doo rightlie beleeue and say thâ—t God suffered and died Acts. 20.28 which that vngodâ—ie man Nestorius denied For vnlesse God had beene he that suffered for vs his sufâ—ering could not haue brought saluation vnto vs. Wherefore we say that God was â—â—rne suffered dead and rose againe And againe on the other side we say that the sonne of man was in heauen when he spaâ—e on the earth with Nicodemus Iohn 3.13 And â—his we affirme euen by this rule following to wit The third rule that whatsoeuer words or termes are proper to either of the natures that is to say the Godhead or the manhood they may be changed in the concret but not in the abstract Abstract and what he meaneth thereby But some man will say What is it that you call the abstract We call the very forme it selfe being by thought seuereâ— from the matter an abstract as for example If I doo in my mind comprehend no some iust man or other but some iustice or righteousnesse of a man which also hath place in other predications Iusticâ— therefore or righteousnesse shall be a câ—rteine abstract that is to say a thing câ—â—sidered by it selfe and not in the subiect or particular partie wherein it is Concret and what he meaneth therby And â—he concret shall be the matter or man hiâ—selfe as a iust man to wit he that is â—ndued with that iustice or righteousnes Sâ— in Christ we consider in the abstract tâ—o natures the manhood and the Godheaâ— but in the concret we comprehend him God man Therefore let Godhead
Christes flesh is now also and that in deed and verilie present both into the heauens into which he ascended and in the earth likewise and that also in all places in which that bread and that wine is deliuered or giuen to such as come to receiue it I will say nothing of them that are not ashamed to affirme that Christes flesh euen from the verie first moment of the personall vnion was togither and in deed present both in the crib and in the heauen yea euerie where present To this first of all they answere The aduersaries obiection that Christes bodie cannot without great wickednesse be made subiect to the law of nature for that bodie that was taken into the vnitie of the person hath receiued farre other vnmeasurable giftes and graces But heere I beseech you wey well what we answer The answer We confesse that there is great regard to be had of that same grace and gift of the personall vnion by which wee cannot but confesse that the manhood of our sauior Christ was so highly exalted that onelie the Deitie or Godhead excepted according to which he is euen greater than himselfe it hath atteined and gotten a name which is aboue all names that is to saye Philip. 2.9.10 that all things created are subiected vnto the same yet for all that that followeth not heerevpon which these men coldlie suppose or fondly imagine for this is the question now betweene vs whether Christes manhood do in deed place it selfe euerie where or in manie places togither at one time to be receiued with our hands and mouth and not what it hath obteined from another or in respect of the other nature to which it is personallie vnited but rather whether this proprietie which in deed is proper to the Godhead alone be in the manhood to wit to be euerie where or in diuers places at one and the selfe same season Schoole men faile manie times in terms but now and then hit the matter And this is that matter which the schoolemen haue by a barbarous word if you respect terms but not by an vnfit word if men will wey the matter called by the name of habitual grace Now this difference being alreadie put downe which skarslie anie vnlesse they be altogither most contentious will denie we say that such doo in deed euacuat Christ or make him of no force as denie Christes flesh Though Christ man be not euerie where yet Christ God and man is euerie where as in respect of another that is to say not in it selfe but according as it is ioined to another to wit so farre foorth as it is personallie vnited with the person of the word to be truelie and in deed euerie where much lesse will wee denie him to be present in that place wheresoeuer in the worlde his supper is administred For whie should wee denie that concerning christs flesh which in a certaine measure hath place in al bodies yea euen there where som one whole thing is become or made one after an other sort than by personall vnion A similitude A tree or a house is many times saide to be in a riuer whereas yet notwithstanding the vpper part either of the one or of the other appearing aboue the water or riuer and being considered in it selfe is indeed in the aire and not in the water in like sort I am said to sit in this seat or chaire whereas yet notwithstanding I sit but in one part of my bodie onelie Likewise I am saide to speake whereas onelie the tongue considered in and by it selfe speaketh The reason and trueth of these speeches dependeth vpon this that a tree a house a man c is one selfesame whole thing compacted and made of his seueral partes For otherwise that coulde not be truely affirmed or saide of two things in deede separated and sundered one of them from an other Application of the similitude So a man may truely affirme whole christ to be euerie where and therfore much more with the bread in the supper and yet no otherwise but so farre foorth as Christ is considered as some one whole substance and beeing and so also as the proprieties of the natures bee not by this meanes confounded But the whole of Christe that is to saye euerye thing belonging to Christ can not therfore for all that bee sayde to bee anye where else than to bee conuersant in one place at one and the selfe-same time for that can no more be spoken of Christs humanitie in it selfe vnlesse wee will with Eutyches and Brentius Eutyches Brentius confounde the proprieties of either nature than this my hande can bee saide to sitte or these my feete may be said to speake If there be any that vnderstande not these things I beseech them to learne to vnderstande the same and to haue more regarde and consideration both of themselues and of others throgh whose sides they would if they could destroy the truth it selfe He turneth that vpon the aduersaries which they obiected against the truth To come to the point They doo not spotle the manhoode of Christ of that his infinite maiestie who teach that fleshe of his to be the flesh of the Sonne of God but they rather that transfourme and chaunge him who is God and man in one person and make him but to beare or cary God or the godhead neither yet do they spoile the manhood of his maiestie or bring him backe vnto the state and condition of other men which according to the grace that they call habituall that is to saye cleauing to the verie flesh of Christ as if it were to his peculiar subiect or matter wherevnto it shoulde sticke doo acknowledge it to bee vnspeakablye more high and excellent than all other thinges whatsoeuer wythout exception excepting onely the godhead of the worde according to which he himselfe is greater than himselfe as we said before but they indeede bring it to nothing or into some image or signe in their owne conceipts at the least who while they goe about to attribute supernaturall thinges vnto him attributing yet notwithstanding vnnatural things to him or thinges against nature do of necessity destroy and ouerthrowe euen mans nature it selfe for that ceaseth to be humane which hauing lost the essentiall proprieties thereof must needes cease to be the which before it was But we wil incounter with thē by an other reson If this verilie be to diminish Christs glorie and to debase his maiestie to affirme that hee can not indeede be at one time in manie places howe much more then must this be the debasing of hym to say that hee was mortall yea that hee did indeede die And yet wee see that this is that which the Apostle alleageth for the commendation of the most excellent loue that the Sonne of GOD carried towardes vs Rom. 5 6 7 8 c Philip. 2.8 which was yet so muche the more great and excellent by
Two very lerned Sermons of M. Beza togither with a short sum of the sacrament of the Lordes Supper Wherevnto is added a treatise of the substance of the Lords Supper wherin is breflie and soundlie discussed the pâ—incipall points in controuersie concerning that question By T. W. 2. CORINTH 13.5 Prooue your selues vvhether ye are in the faith Examine your selues Knovv ye not your ovvne selues hovv that Iesus Christ is in you except ye be reprobats AT LONDON Printed by Robert Walde-graue for T. Man and T. Gubbins Anno. 1588. TO THE RIGHT honorable and verie vertuous ladie Brigit countesse of Bedford and to the right worshipfull and his verie good freends sir CHARLES MORISINES knight and the ladie DOROTHIE MORISINES his wife T. W. vvisheth togither vvith all outvvard abuâ—dance of vvorldlie blessings the continuall comfort of a good conscience heere and the eternall saluation of their soules at the last through Christ THe consideration of the christian fauors which you right honorable right worshipfull my verie deere freends haue carried towards me and the memorie of some benefits that I haue receiued from you hath sundrie times so affected my heart that I could not but in the good remembrance therof in some measure of vnfeinednesse as in respect of God praise his holie name for those his mercies and as in regard of you with earnestnesse pray vnto him for your prosperous estates and that in the best things especiallie and as in consideration of my selfe thinke vpon some good meane wherby I might at the least shew my selfe in some sort mindfull of and thankefull for the same Whatsoeuer I write in this behalfe I vtter it I humblie thanke God for it not vaine gloriouslie to boast before God or men in anie thing I haue done for I know feele in my selfe that ouer and besides my grosse greeuous iniquities euen in the best seruices that euer I performed in pietie towards God or in charitie towards his people there was by reason of mine owne corruption and the imperfections that through the same did cleue thervnto matter sufficient inough in truth to abase and to humble me indeed neither yet as cunninglie to craue dailie and new kindnesses a vice too common in this corrupt age the Lord hauing bin pleased in that behalfe to bestow vpon me more simplicitie than by fawning flatterie to fetch from my freends anie thing that might satisfie large affections or releeue present want But to these ends I protest and that in singlenesse of heart haue I declared the same namelie that all my christian acquaintance and amongst others your honour and worships especiallie might be assured that the good you haue doone me though at the first it might seeme to be cast away in as much as present testification of my gratefull minde were not then prest and readie hath not yet vtterlie beene lost because now at the length God hath inabled me by some small meanes to declare the contrarie and againe that I my selfe feeling my selfe now and then by Gods grace I doubt not for as I know so I freelie confesse that in my flesh that is to say in my selfe dwelleth nothing that is good stirred vp to such holie duties might receiue not in the things as performed by my selfe but as they are graces of God flowing from his goodnesse and wrought by his word and spirit both some comfort in the daies of my great greefe and heuinesse of heart and some incouragement to goodnesse also when mine owne dulnesse and backwardnesse to the same not onelie ariseth vp in me but standeth against it as with force and might to stop and hinder me therein In regard whereof also I doo at this time humblie offer and present vnto you right honorable right worshipfull togither first a sound discourse or two which that learned man M. Beza wrote and I long ago translated and withall a short summe that I my selfe penned heeretofore and haue inlarged againe all of them touching that great question of the Lords supper For that woorthie mans woorthie works I dare protest and auer that if the excellencie either of the man or matter or maner may purchase a frutefull commendation and procure fauorable acceptation with them that feare God I meane loue his truth sincerelie it shall not want either the one or the other For as concerning the writer himselfe he is one of the woonders woorthies of the world at this day a man of rare parts euerie maner of way whatsoeuer some either of ignorance in themselues or pride of themselues barke out against him to the contrarie whether we respect sound knowledge and iudgement in the toongs and trueth of God or faithfull paines and frutefull trauels in his ministerie and place And as for the worke it concerneth a great ground of our christian faith and the same controuerted not onlie betweene the superstitious papists and vs in the question of transubstantiation but with such also as in the common profession of Gods holie word and religion we charitably take for our brethren thogh otherwise in this point ouershot as we say ouerseene also The maner of handling is deepe profound and not shallow or meane after the maner and dealing of other men there being for the more full explication of the question deducted and laid out sundrie of the fundamentall points and principles of our christian faith and namelie touching the seuerall and distinct natures of God and man and the personall vnion of them in our sauiour Christ But for mine owne I mind not to say much speciallie as in commendation therof That which I thinke I will plainelie expresse and protest also namelie that as nothing of mine is in anie respect meet to behold the light of this learned age both by reason of mine owne wants insufficiencie and also by means of the great ripenesse of knowledge and iudgement that God hath shed abrode into the hearts of manie men so I confesse my selfe my writings much more vnwoorthie either the same day to be named with that woorthie man of the world or anie maner of way to be ioined with his And yet if the church approoue that which I doo and the godlie receiue some profit by it to spirituall edification I shall much reioice therin not as in respect of that I haue doone for I acknowledge my selfe to haue nothing saue that which I haue receiued but as in regard of the good effects that it hath through Gods almightie and secret blessing brought foorth in the hearts of them that haue bin or shal be acquainted therewith in which treatise I haue speciallie laboured two things First in the daies of so great blindnesse and ignorance amongst the multitude and common sort of people as now preuaileth to instruct the simple as much as I could in the sound knowledge of these most holie mysteries that so neither with the idle and vnskilfull conceits of their owne heads nor with the superstitious and erronious
that God dwelleth in vs Iohn 4.12 and yet we beleeue and confes that he dwelleth not in his saints by his vnion or vniting 1. Corinth 6.19 For our bodies are so the tēples of the holy ghost that yet they make not one subsistēce or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is seuerally by himselfe a certaine thing so likewise the holy ghost to wit god eternall So a wicked spirit and some one possessed with the same wicked spirit are ioined togither yet the vncleane spirite is not in man as the soule is in the bodie For the wicked spirit remaineth by it self a certain thing much like as the ghest is in his inne and againe the possessed with the wicked spirit is so become the inne or lodging place of the wicked spirite that yet the ghest is another from him As for vs we affirme the person of the word or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken vnto him that hee hath vnited himselfe thereto by a personall vnion so I say that the nature taken or assumed being sustained and vpheld in the nature taking or assuming maketh yet notwithstanding but one person which is the eternall worde of God Hereupon it foloweth that there are not two sonnes of God much lesse two Christs one the son of Marie the other the son of God Matth. 1.21.23 but one Immanuel and sauior onelie And this is the very true description of the personall vnion as wil yet much more plainelie appeare if we compare with this truth touching the personal vnion Sundrie sorts of errors the descriptions that are partlie felt from the olde heresies and partlie anew deuised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies First there are some that feare not openly to say that the habitation or dwelling of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered in Christ or that he doth no otherwise dwell in him than in other men yea than in other creatures Iacobus Andreas assertion and the same confuted Iacobus Andreas in those his Thesis or propositions by which he blowed to the field or bade the battel wrote the same euen in so many words as you would saie to wit that the habitation or dwelling of the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creaturs whatsoeuer as in respect of his essentiall habitation or dwelling for God is euerie where If a man demaund what shall be the difference of the personall vnion this shall be their answeare that it consisteth herein that into all other things the godhead hath powred forth some properties or qualities but into Christes humanity or manhoode hee hath powred all properties A wonderfull thing that after that these opinions haue nowe a long while since bin tossed and by the solemne and most iust iudgements of Christes church condemned and confounded by so many darts as haue come from heauen it selfe against the authors and fautors of these vngodlie blasphemies a maruellous thing I say that there should now spring vp some as dare be bolde both by worde and writing to maintaine and defend the same and that with so great reioicing and commendation of most vnskilfull men for who is he vnles hee be altogither blinde that seeth not that if the word be no other wise present in christ thā in many things that is to say beingly presently powerfully as in schools they were woont to say that then Christs person is destroied His heresie is declared before as Nestorius taught And that if wee grant an effusion or powring forth of all the proprieties of the godhead into the flesh assumed or taken that then the other part of the vngodlie assertion of Eutyches Concerning him and his heresie see before shall be erceted and set vp A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such diuers matters to wit the seperating of the naturs on the one side the effusion or powring forth of the properties of the one nature into the other on the other side first in our memory time most impudently fried and most vnskilfully by our vbiquitaries defended But let vs I pray you somwhat more narrowlie looke into the matter that we may see what it meaneth This I say that if the personall vnion be to be defined and determined by the effusion or powring foorth of all properties that then this Hee ouerthroweth the error by absurdities insuming vpon it The first absurditie which of al things is most false vngodly will follow therevpon to wit that God is in some sorte personallie vnited vnto all things created Why so Because the effusiō or powring forth of all some properties alone doo not differ genere as they say that is in the general or cōmon kind but according to more or lesse only wherfore either Christ was not otherwise God than any other thing though perhaps hee were somewhat more perfect than other things or else other things were diuine and god-like but Christs flesh most diuine and god-like The second absurditie Againe if the definition of the personall vnion were true it woulde followe therevpon that the three persons wer vnited to that flesh that was assumed or taken for the essentiall proprietie of the verie godhead it selfe are common to the three persons in one the self-same essence or being therfore to be infinite almighty knowing al things present euery wher c as they themselues now speak be not proprieties either of the father or of the son or of the holy ghost but onely of that alone and altogither singular godhead Wherevpon it foloweth that if we grant that definition of the personall vnion that then the 3 persons of the godhead were incarnat They were so called bicause they affirmed that God the father suffered Isiodor Orig. libr. 8. The third absurditie tooke flesh vpon them and so we shall proceede further than the patropassian heretiks Moreouer by this means the godhead it self shold be spoiled of his most essential proprieties euē this I say which are most proper therto or which do belōg vnto the same after the fourth maner or sort as the logicians speake that is to say doo belong vnto the whole Godhead alone vnto the Godhead and alwaies vnto the same for verilie if they be in deed communicated vnto the nature of man that was assured or taken then I say they doo now cease to be proper to the Godhead vnlesse we minde to make these termes proper common all one But the Lord speaketh otherwise in the prophet saieng I will not giue my glorie vnto another Isaiah 48.11 The fourth absurditie What more Him whome these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion had made of him that was God man togither in one person but one that carried or bare God these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion conceit transforme him I say and his flesh hauing
in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powred into the same into the Godhead it selfe But now if there nothing happen to God or there be no accident in him as indeed there is not for whatsoeuer is in him is substance and not accidents as they speake in schooles How were the properties by which he is distinguished from things created indeed powred foorth into the flesh assumed and taken but that also mans nature should be changed into a certeine Godhead that is made or created He procureth an obiection But if these men will denie as sometimes I see them by the power of trueth it selfe constreined to denie that the monstrous presence euerie where for whose cause onelie whatsoeuer they faine they propound vnto vs that monster of vbiquitie to be esteemed and reuerenced dooth not cleaue vnto Christes flesh as to his proper subiect or that it is not accidents but onlie as accidents then I say who seeth not what monstrous things these are to ascribe vnto the flesh a reall presence euerie where in it selfe though not of it selfe the subiect whereof should yet notwithstanding not be the flesh it selfe but the Godhead which Godhead for all that should no otherwise be present to the flesh than to all other things whatsoeuer And whereof will these men be ashamed who are so farre off from being ashamed of these matters that yet they dare obiect this against vs that we exact points of diuinitie and religion to be handled according to the rules of philosophie The fift absurditie Certeinelie if so be it that the personall vnion must be defined and determined not by the vnion of the verie person of the word with flesh assumed or taken into one and the selfe same subsistence or being yet without anie reall vnion either of the natures themselues or of the essentiall properties wherwith they are indued but by the vniuersall effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces from the nature assuming or taking into the nature assumed or taken which monstrous opinion fet from the filthie stincking puddles both of Nestorius Eutyches also and twise sod Brentius Suindelinus Illyrichus and these other goodlie fellowes doo propound and deliuer vnto the churches of Christ I say that whether they will yea or no this must needs follow vpon it that Christ is neither God nor man much lesse GOD and man togither Chimaera is a monster hauing three heads one like a lion another like a gote the third like a dragon but a certeine Chimaera or monster made of most grosse confusion and discord Yea and what meaneth this that they themselues are of necessitie constreined to except some things after that they haue affirmed that all things are powred foorth The sixt absurditie For these things verilie to be without beginning to be of himselfe c. Cannot be attributed to a creature but they may be personallie vnited and are in deed personallie vnited because that must be true which Christ himselfe saith Iohn 8.58 Before Abraham was I am And this is true because that he that after so manie ages passed from the beginning of the world was made or became the sonne of Mary Iohn 1.1 euen he I say is that word which was in the beginning not so much for his full effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces as for the bodilie vnion or vniting of the Godhead it himselfe in the person of the word wherefore if we will beleeue these men this sonne of the virgine Marie shall not be eternall because there was not powred into the flesh assumed or taken that same being without beginning whereof he cannot be partaker euen as they themselues confesse who are otherwise large sheders abrode or rather euerters and ouerthrowers of all properties They being thus driuen from hense euen as it were out of some hold or fortresse of their owne at the last they retire hither or haue this starting hole Another obiection answered or rather error confuted to say forsooth that the personall vnion consisteth heerin that the word dooth nothing but with the manhoood and by the manhood as the soule dooth nothing but with the bodie or by the bodie Peripatelians were subtle philosophers of Aristotles sect opinion who had their names of disputing walking I will leaue this to the Peripatelians to be reasons of whether it be true that the soule ioined to the bodie doth nothing of it selfe for there are not diuers wanting that doo stiflie and stoutlie denie the same But I affirme that that definition of the personall vnion cannot stand I grant therefore that from the time the eternall word tooke flesh vnto him that it did not at anie time doo anie thing without the flesh the reason is because this vnion is perpetuall and yet for al that it dooth not heerevpon follow that whatsoeuer the worde did he did it by the flesh Though it be granted I say that the word did nothing being separated from the flesh because that that flesh which it once tooke it neuer laid downe yet it followeth not that whatsoeuer the word did it did it by the fleshe which thing may bee shewed by most assured and manifest examples The first example Christ raised vppe himselfe by his owne diuine power who also had said of himselfe Iohn 10.18 I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe Did therefore the Godhead through the flesh accomplish and performe that worke I suppose no man will say so The second example Iohn 1.48 Matth. 9.4 When Christ beheld Nathaniell absent did he see him with his bodilie eies And when without the disclosing of anie other man he saw the thoughts of his aduersaries did he this by anie sharpnesse of mans minde or vnderstanding No verilie Wherefore he saw all these things as he was God and not with minde or bodie and yet he saw them not without man because he being God is man also The third example Matth. 8.13 Iohn 9.6.7 c. When he healed the Centurians seruant being absent did he that as when he healed that blind man being present putting his hand to him and making the claie No in deed For he wrought this latter by his hands mooued through the flesh that is to say vsing the instrument of flesh assumed or taken whereas he healed the other by the onelie power of his Godhead And yet he was not free from flesh I confesse it He healed him therefore with the flesh but not through flesh Wherefore in this fellow-working togither of the Godhead the nature assumed or taken the personall vnion is not deposed or ouerthrowne but established rather Beside though I should grant the antecedent or first proposition He granteth the aduersaries that which they speake and yet they gaine nothing by it to witte that the worde dooth nothing but with and by the manhood yet that would not follow therevpon that they imagine
and â—anhood be the abstracts and God and â—an the concrets And then I say that the thinges attributed to the humanitie nay be attributed to God or spoken of â—im though they cannot be attributed to the Godhead or spoken thereof and on thâ— other side I affirme that such things as be proper to the Godhead may be attributed to man though not to the manhood Wherefore this proposition is true This man is God or this The eternall word of the father is man but these are vngodlie and blasphemous the Godhead is the manhood or the manhood is the Godhead So we must say and beleeue God that is to say the sonne was borne of the virgine suffered dead c. but not the Godhead for he in deed that is God suffered but not his Godhead 1. Pet. 3 18. Therefore when Peter saith that Christ suffered he added in the flesh So Paule Rom. 1. Rom. 1.4 He was mightilie declared to be the son of God according to the spirit The cause of this predication or speech in the abstract is the verie personall vnion it selfe to wit because that that subsistence or being or that person Christ is by the figure Synecdoche That is 〈…〉 put for the whole so denominated of either of his natures Wherfore whether he be called man he is yet notwithstanding vnderstood to be God or whether he be called God he is like wise vnderstood to be man But when wee speake of the natures themselues to wit either the manhood or the Godhead by these abstracted names ther is nothing els signified or meant but the seuerall natures in and by themselues And least these maner of speeches might seeme to anie man darke and strange He preuenteth an obiection as though christian religion were conteined in certeine hiddeÌ„ mysteries and secrets far remooued from common vse vnderstanding whereas rather on the other side the Holie ghost instructing the church touching these most darke hidden matters hath kept a most grosse as you would say and common mamer of teaching Theodoretus Two similitudes to explaine the point by Theodoret doth rightlie and trulie tell vs that euen the common people are hardlie accustomed to speake anie otherwise for if Peter speake who would not rather say that Peter speaketh than say that Peters bodie or toong speaketh and yet notwithstanding neither dooth Peters minde nor his foot nor anie other member speake but his toong or mouth But because these things haue euen personallie growne vp as it were togither and are come into one subsistence or being that is truelie in the concret attributed to and spoken of the whole which if it were vttered of the parts of the whole considered seuerallie and by themselues should be falslie spoken What more By reason of this personall vnion though now it be dissolued through death Peter shal be said to haue died and sat at Rome whose soule yet notwithstanding neither â—s dead neither anie where placed vpon â—he earth So when I say the eternall â—onne of God died I consider and meane him as he is whole Christ although I denominate him after one of his natures to wit his mortall or humane nature So againe I say This man forgiueth sinnes and yet not as he is man of himselfe for it belongeth onelie to God to forgiue sinnes but because he is God and man in one person togither Marke 2.7 And this is the manner of speaking which the ancient diuines haue called the communicating of proprieties Communicating of proprieties and what it is which some do not rightlie distinguish from making common and other some disputing whether it be reall yea or no haue bewraied most grosse ignorance And this may easilie be decided and determined by the vnmoouable foundations abouesaid if we haue not a contentious spirit wherevnto if we should not yeeld doubtlesse the old sophisters and naturall philosophers if they were aliue at this day wold laugh vs to scorne Religion alloweth no falshood Diuinitie christian religion admitteth no false matter or point therefore that trope or maner of spech touching the communicating of the proprieties is altogither true in the concret that is in Christs person being weighed as if some whole thing should be considered iointlie and togither neither was it woont otherwise to be vsed in the church But in the abstract that is in the appellatiue or common name or name whereby either of the natures be called it can neuer be vsed without vngodlinesse much lesse can it be taken for true that the proprieties of the Godhead may be spoken of the manhood or the proprieties of the manhood spoken of the Godhead And these be the points which we being about to speake of the Lords supper haue thought needfull to be propounded and deliuered that therefore remaining behind may be the better vnderstood of which we will by Gods grace speake at large in the next reading or lecture THE SECOND HOMILIE or Sermon made the eight of Aprill 1574. THis is the sum of the thinges that wee spake in the former Sermon to wit The summe of the former Sermon consisting of foure particular points that 1 al the knowledge of our saluation did depend of the knowlege of Christ and that wee 2 had in Christ principally two things to be considered that is to saye such as did concerne the knowledge of his person and such also as did concerne the knowledge of his offices We haue heard 3 that vnder the name or worde of person there was meant Christ himselfe further that that person consisted of two natures that is the godhead the manhoode both of these being so vnited and ioyned together that the very natures themselues their properties also remaining sound and vnconfounded Christ by that meanes is become but one subsistence or being For wee haue alreadie affirmed the godhead so to haue assumed and taken the manhood vnto it that they are not now two persoÌ„s but two natures of which two natures the one that is to say the nature assumed or taken is sustained and vpheld or as I may so say made a persoÌ„ with the nature assuming that is to say the godhead from 4 this wee proceeded to speake of suche things as were attributed to or spoken of either of the natures or the whole person and wee affirmed that they were so to be vsed as that we alwaies preserued the vnion of the person and continuallie auoided the confounding of the natures For seeing these two natures Synodus Chalcedonensis are as the Synode of Chalcedon saieth vndiuidedlie vnseparablie and vnconfoundedlie coupled together in the personall vnion necessarie is it that either of these natures should haue their owne proper thinges attributed vnto them and therfore not communicated vnto others Wherfore some things attributed to the godhead and somthings also attributed vnto the manhood were so proper and peculiar to the Godhead and the manhoode that those that were attributed to the one
eternall arise to such a huge number in the seueral sorts and great varietie of them that are not able to thinke of them or anie one of them according to their woorthinesse muche lesse to account or number them and thirdlie to consider our selues receiuing them to whome the Lorde freelie and of his owne goodnesse giueth these great mercies not onelie when wee had not deserued the least of them but euen then when euery one of vs had deserued eternall death and condemnation to be poured foorth vpon vs and ours 3 And lastlie in care and conscience of a most holie and christian conuersation that seeing wee are in the holie Supper made partakers by faith of Christs death and resurrection and that wee fullie perswade our selues by the truth of the word Roman 4.25 that he did not onlie die for our sinnes and rise for our righteousnesse but also performed that excellent and great worke to teach vs Roman 6.1 Coloss 3.1 by his death to die to vngodlinesse and by his resurrection to rise vp to that holinesse that may bee acceptable before God profitable to our brethren and comfortable to our selues wee hauing by that meanes and to that end our spiritual life and being from him that therefore we should liue soberlie righteouslie Titus 2.12 and godlie in this present euill world and that in the sound affections of our harts before God and in words and deeds before men that when it shall please him to finish the daies of our wearisome pilgrimage we stedfastlie looking for that blessed hope and full-fruition of eternall life may be glorified with him in eternall blessednes which thing the Lord grant vs euen for his crucified Christes sake to whom with the Father and the Holie ghost three persons and one eternall God be giuen all honor praise power glorie both of vs and of all people euen now and at all times for euer and euer So be it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 TO THE READER AT the motion and request of sundrie my deere friends in the Lord I haue thought good to put downe these two praiers following not thereby minding either to tie anie person to the vse of these onelie for they may according to their seuerall necessities conceiue some other of their owne or practise some better forme alredie set foorth by men of greater gifts or feeling nor yet so to busie their minds and to occupie their heads as that they should be imploied in these when the publike praiers and exercises of the church performed by the ministers are in hand for be it farre from vs when the minister Gods mouth speaketh from the Lord to vs or when he as our mouth speaketh to the Lord for vs to haue either our hearts or our mouthes occupied about any other thing than the reuerend hearing and consenting vnto of such things as hee vttereth But that aiding the infirmitie of our brethren such as haue not the gift to conceiue praier and shall thinke this fit for themselues might haue a forme to exercise themselues in both before they repaire to the publike exercises of the church and also after the celebration and partaking of these reuerend mysteries shall be finished A PRAIER TO BE SAID BEFORE a man repaire to the partaking of the Lords supper O Eternall God and most mercifull father I thy poore and vnwoorthie seruant doo humblie beseech thee in Iesus Christ thy deere sons name and for his sake gratiouslie through his death and obedience to pardon and forgiue me all my sinnes whatsoeuer which at anie time by thought word or deed I haue through negligence ignorance or knowledge committed against thy diuine maiestie or anie other And because both by reason of the curssed corruption of mine owne nature and the infinit multitude of my sinnes also I am slow dull of heart to beleeue seale vp in my soule I pray thee O Lord this great benefit of the free pardon full forgiuenesse of all my sinnes by the assured testimonie of thy blessed spirit bearing record vnto my spirit that I am thy childe and by vnfeined parddoning and forgiuing of others which anie maner of way haue offended against me Yea make the death and resurrection of thy sonne so powerfull effectuall in me that I may not onelie feele and finde in the same the forgiuenesse of all my sinnes both generall and particular and the hope of eternall saluation but also that I may be instructed thereby all the daies of my life more and more to die vnto sin and dailie more more to liue vnto righteousnes of life and holie conuersation And forasmuch as through thy goodnesse I haue purposed this day to communicat in the vse of thy blessed word and sacraments I beseech thee good father to pearse mine eares to prepare my heart yea and so to direct all the parts and powers of my body and soule that I may not onelie reuerentlie and profitablie hearken to thy voice speaking vnto me out of thy word laboring all the daies of my life to conforme my selfe to the knowledge faith and obedience of the same but also that I may assuredlie be made partaker of the frutes and effects of the death and passion of thy deere sonne which it pleaseth thee in that holie sacrament to offer vnto me To this end and purpose I beseech thee to grant that I be not carried away in the contemplation and consideration of the earthly and corruptible things obiected therein to my sences but that my faith may be set vp raised to the spirituall beholding assured feeling and full fruition of these graces which it pleaseth thee by the same to offer vnto me Giue me grace good Lord to bring with me a stedfast faith in the truth of thy promises that by it as by an eie I may looke vpon and by the same as by a hand I may apprehend Iesus Christ thy sonne sitting at thy right hand to be my onelie and continuall iustifier sanctifier and redeemer Grant me grace also to bring with me as an earnest hatred of all my former euils whatsoeuer so a sincere loue of all righteousnesse and well dooing that I by the power of thy spirit crucifieng the old man with the lusts and concupiscences therof speciallie such as beare the greatest sway in me may be strengthened in the new man dailie to thinke speake and doo those things which may be acceptable and well pleasing in thy godlie presence And I beseech thee further to giue me grace to bring with me sound sincere loue towards all men yea euen towards mine enimies that I may not onelie forget and forgiue all the iniuries wrongs that they haue deuised said or doone against me but also pray earnestlie vnto thy maiestie for them and purchase and procure