to the godhead to be lesse then the Father Of this point be the Fathers Irencus Ambrosius Ierononius Vigilius Augustinus and almost all the rest most sufficient witnesses As sayth Irenens the soule is present to the flesh dying and suffreth nothing so the godhead of Christ is present with the manhood suffring and suffering nothing onely rested Ambrose of that vpon S. Iohn Hereafter you shall see the sonne of man sitting on the right hande of the vertue This sitting doth so appertayne to the man sayeth he that in no case it is applyed to the Godhead which is infinite for God that is euer euery where cannot goe from place to place Ierâ—me Christ did die according to that he could die Vigilius agaynst Vtiches he one and the same sonne of God the Lord Jesus Christe both died according to the fourme of a seruaunt and died not according to the fourme of god Austen vpon that of S. John. None went vp into heauen but he that came down from heauen the sonne of man which is in heauen â–ª he was here sayeth S. Austen by flesh in heauen by Godhead yea euery where by Godhead and a little after shall not man Christ be called the sonne of God which his fieshe alone deserued to be called in the graue For what else doe we confesse when we say that we beléeue in the only begotten son of God which was crucifyed and suffered vnder Pontius Pilate died and was buryed what was buryed of him but his flesh without his soule And more playnly afterwardes who is he by whome the world was made Christe Jesus but in the fourme of God who was nayled to the crosse vnder Pontius Pilate Christ Jesus but in the fourme of a seruaunt Who was net lefte in Hell Christ Jesus but in soule alone Who lay thrée dayes dead in the graue and rose agayne the same Christe Jesus but in flesh alone Christ is sayd in ech one of these but all these be not two or thrée but one Christ Whereby it is playne the certayne properties or peculier graces of the one nature may be ascribed to the other in word thorough the vnion of the person but cannot agree in déede thorow the difference of the two natures The which Vigilius doth most playnly expresse agaynst Vtiches Then according to the property of nature onely the flesh died only the flesh was buried but according to the vnion of the person God dyed and was buryed For the person of the word is in the flesh which died Also according to the propertie of the nature the word came downe from heauen not the flesh And according to the property of the nature the flesh died and not the word but according to the vnion of the person both the flesh came downe from heauen and the word dyed and was buried Then when we saye that God died and suffred Let not Nestoreus be afrayde For we speake according to the vnion of the person Againe when we say that God neyther died nor suffered Let not Vtiches dreade for we speake according to the proprietie of the nature To this purpose writeth Theodorete you are to vnderstande that the vnion of the two natures doth make the names and proprieties common you will not say I suppose that the fleshe of God came downe from heauen For it was made in the Virgins wombe Howe then doeth the Lorde saye if you shall see the sonne of manne go vp the ther where he was before And againe none goeth vp into heauen but he that came downe from heauen the sonne of manne which is in heauen this he meaneth not of the flesh but of the godhead And the godhead is of God the father how then doth he call him the son of man They be reckned common to the person thorowe the vnion which be peculier to the seuerall natures So we are to expounde the rest in this sorte as the Fathers do The word became fleshe What is the mind what is the meaning of this spéeche was the deuine nature made the humayne nature God forbidde Naye it did take vnite to the selfe the humaine nature God did purge his church by his bloude What meaneth this hath the deuine nature bloud God forbidde that anye body should so think but God did purge his church by the bloude of that nature which he did appropriate by inâ—arnation or taking our flesh vpon him They nayled to the crosse the GOD of glory what is the the sence of these wordes was the godheade pierced or nayled to the woode God forbidde Nay that nature was so affected which the godhead did take to the self of the virgins wombe Wherefore thorowe the vnion of the person such things maye be spoken in worde but they cannot agrée in déede Neyther doth that of saint Basill of the birth of Christ disagrée with these How is the godheade in the fleshe as the fyre is in the yron not transitiuely but distributiuely For the fyre doth not runne into the yron but abyding in the place doth imparte and bestowe the peculier facultie vppon it Howe then was not God the word fylled with bodily weaknesse as the fyre doth not get to it selfe the proprieties of the yron IroÌ„ is black and colde and yet fyred it becommeth bright and hotte So the humayne nature of the Lorde was made partaker of the denine nature but did not poure into the deâ—â—e nature the owne weaknesse And so I see certaine proprieties dispersed but I doe not vnderstand all for after the vniting of the godhead the body of Christe was hungrie coulde thirstie wearie and gréeued and this is true of Christ the voyce My Soule is heauier euen vnto death And nayled vpon the crosse he sayeth I am dry He suffred truely he dyed truely hée was compassed about with place truly I would therefore gladly learne why the two natures should be sayd to be deuided because the seuerall proprieties of ech nature be set downe after his rysing agayne rather then they were wheÌ„ the seuerall proprieties of eache nature were set downe before his death For I reasoÌ„ thus the body of Christ liuing vpon earth was in one certayne and peculier place but the Godhead was in euery place And yet none will say that the person of Christ was then deuided why then may we not likewise say that the body of christ being in heauen is in one certayn and peculier place and yet not deuide the person of Christe For in Christes person being vpon earth perfecte God and perfect man were coupled together As S. Paule doth exceleÌ„tly say to the Colossians In him doeth dwel all the fulnesse of the Gohhead bodily The true full and absolute Godhead did dwell in the true full and absolute body comprised in one certayne and peculier place and yet was there no renting of the person of Christ What ground then haue these lameÌ„table and bitter outeryes that the persoÌ„ of Christ is denided
more narrowly nor more nobly of the most noble blessed body of Christ there the word of god doth teach me For our mayâ—â—er Christ geueth the same for a rule Searche the scriptures For they beare witnesse of me And truely the aunciente Fathers doe playnly teache that argumentes drawen from the power of God be both very weake and to to daungerous first Tertullian against Praxias the Heretick sayd it is not hard for God to make him selfe both Father and sonne contrary to the course of nature as it was not hard for GOD to cause the barren to bring forth a childe and the virgin an other Certaynly there is nothing harde vnto God but and if we shall vse these presumptions and gesses so abruptly hasâ—ely We may surmise any thing of god that God hath done it because he coulde doe it But not because God can doe all thinges therefore are we bounde to beléeue that God hath done that which he hath not done but it is our duety to serch out by Gods worde whether he haue done it or no Secondly S. Ierome writing to Eustochius of the kéeping of virginity doth say I speake boldly although God can doe all thinges yet can he not rayse vp a Virgin after her fall Thirdly saint Austen against Faustus whosoeuer sayth if God be almighity he can cause that those things which be done be not done he doth not sée that he sayth thus much in effect if God be almightie he can cause that the same things which be true in that that they be true be also false Last of all Theodorete in his thirde Dialogue which is called Impatibilis doeth saye that we ought not to say definitely and absolutely that all things be possible vnto god By the which it appeareth that we may auouch without impechmente of Gods almighty power â–ª that God hath not done all thinges which he coulde haue done neyther doth the word teach that but this God hath done whatsoeuer hee would that is to saye whatsoeuer it séemed good to his wisdome to haue done TheÌ„ we are to séeke out whether it be Gods will pleasure that the humayne and natural body of Christ should be in euery place at one time For if Gods will be so it is without all doubt but if Gods will bée not so it is great sinne to teach or thinke the contrary If Gods will be to haue the naturall body of Christ a made body an humayne body and a natural body a body distinguished with partes then Gods will is not that Christes naturall body should be in many places at one time For then it should breake the boundes marckes and limmittes and should leaue to be an humayne and naturall body Nowe nothing can at the sawe time be a humayne body and a not humayne body a naturall body and a not naturall body But you will say you may not leaue to reason in matters of religion Truth it is if the booke of God teach otherwise But the body of Christe hath this peculier and priuate grace to be in many places at once not locally it is as much to say as it hath this peculier grace to be a body and not bodily Wherefore I will goe on thus It can by no meanes be that a thing made should be euery where but the body of Christ is a thing made then it can by no meanes be that the body of Christ should be euery where Basillus the great doth proue the proposition in his booke of the holy Ghost The Aungell that stoode by Cornelius was not the same tyme with Phillip neyther he that spake to Zachary at the Aulter was the same time in heauen But the holy ghost did work in the same moment in Abacuck and in Danyel and was at the same time with Ieremy in the dungen with Ezechiell in Chouaâ— For the spirite of the Lord hath filled the whole world But he that is in all places â— pâ—esst with God of what nature or condition oughte he to be beléeued to be of that which contayneth all things or of that which is contayned in some perticuler place Vigillius doeth proue the same speaking in the person of Athanasius in his Dialogue in the which the speakers be Sâ—bâ—llius Photinus Arius and Athanasius Thereby it is playne that the holy ghost is God because it is euery where and is contayned in no place as the Prophete speaketh to God the Father Whether shall I gee from the spirite For to be euery where and in one and the same momente to fill the heauens the earthes the Seas and lowe places belongeth not to any creature but only to God And a little afterward it cannot be in one nature to lye in the bosom of the Mâ—nger and to be shewed by the starres to be subiecte to men and to bee serued by the Aungels to flye froÌ„ place to place and to be preseÌ„t in euery place to dwel in Earth and not to leaue 〈…〉 auen To coÌ„clude Cirillus proueth it thus if God fill all places and that by the holy ghost the holy ghost is God and not a creature These may be briefely knit vp thus according to Basill the body of Christ or ther is of that nature and condition which contayneth all thinges that is to say diuine or God or of that nature and condition which is contayned in some perticuler place But it is not the diuine nature or God therfore it is contayned in some perticuler place According to Vigill if it be euery where and contayned in no place it is God but it is not god therefore it is contayned in some place According to Cirillus if it fyll all places it is not a creature but it is a creature therefore it doth not fil all places I grant say you that a creature should be God if by the owne power it could be euer where but the body of Christ hath not that of the selfe but by the maiesty of the Godhead adioyned to it The hereticke graunted the same of the holy ghost and therefore the aucthority of these ancient Fathers doth presse you as much as them No save you I doe not speake of the body of Christ as of a simple and common creature but as of a creature coupled to the godhead by vnion or oning of person and the same also being glorifyed by resurrection and ascention which I saye hath by force of the godhead this grace geuen to it that it should be in euery place present with the Godhead and neuer parted from it and so cannot be comprised in any one place Then heare what Theodorete doth say in his secoÌ„d Dialogue The body of our Lord is risen againe frée from corruption and destruction and is impatible and immortall and glorifyed worshipped of the heaueÌ„ly powers and yet it is a body and hath the same circumscription which it had before Here Cirillus in his second booke of the Trinity if the Trinity
coulde be parted it should be a body and if it were a body it should be absolutely in place and it should be great and haue quantity and if it had quanttâ—y it could not auoyde circumscription Here Austen in his thirteth Treatise vpon saint John the Lorde Jesus is aboue but here is also the truth the Lorde For the bodie of the Lorde in the which he rose againe must needes be in one place but the truth is dispersed I reason thus out of Theodorete the incorruptible the impatible the immortall the glorifyed the worshipped body of the Lorde is circumscribed as it was being vpon earth Therfore whatsoeuer bodye of Christ you meane it is comprehended in one place Out of Cirill thus If the Trinity be a body it is in place it hath quantitie it hath circumscription But the humaine nature of Christ ioyned with the Godhead and being glorifyed and made immortall is a body Therefore it is in place it hath quantitie it hath circumscription Out of Austen the body of the Lorde in the which he rose againe must be in one place Ergo the immortall and glorifyed bodye of Christ is contained in one place Neyther is this to part the natures of the manhoode and Godhead of Christ but to set downe the seuerall properties of eche nature For I doe not meane that the humane nature is in place seuered from the deuine nature but is euer ioyned to it But yet the humanitie doth not fyll all places which the Deity doeth fill This maye well appere by this similitude although it be not like in all pointes for you be to vnderstande that a symilitude néedeth not to be like in all pointes but onely in those properties the which is vsed to make plaine The bodie of the sunne abydeth euer in the globe or circle in the FirmameÌ„t but the beames of the sunne doe walke thorow the whole worlde the vertue of the sunne doth comfort féede and nourishe euerye lyuing creature vppon the face of the whole earth and yet neyther the beames nor the vertue of the sunne be parted from the bodie of the sunne Euen so the body of Christ is placed in heauen as in a most bewtifull and gorgeeâ—s Throne but the godhead of Christ doth not onely fill the heauens the ayre the sea the earth and the places vnder the earth but also doeth comfort nourishe all and euerye creature in all and euery the saide places and yet the godhead is not parted from the bodye although the body fyll not so many places as the godhead doth That famous and learned prince Iustinian spied thys that two thinges might be ioyned together and yet the one not to fyll so manye or the same places as the other And thervpon in his most excellent booke Called the Institutions of Iustinian doeth most wisely and discreetely order that when the bodies bowes of the trée hang ouer one mans close and the roote of the trée hangeth in an other That the trée should be his in whose close the roote groweth For this purpose then the body bowes of the trée be in Mâ—uius his close the roote of the trée groweth in Titius his close and yet the body and the bowes be not seuered from the roote but ioyned to the roote although the roote doth not fill any place in Meâ—â—â—s his close as the body and bowes doe Euen so then the body of Christ resteth in Heauen but the godhead doth fyll al other closes places they be not seuered but remayn ioyned together For although the Godhead being of much more excellâ—â—y and efficacy than the beames of the sunne and more fruitefull then the rootes of trees doe poure the force vppon all places and thinges notwithstanding the body is not present neither doeth â—il al the same place This is a more familier resemblaunce The body of the Candle is set in the Candle sticke but the light of the Candle fylleth the whole house The body of Christ abydeth in heauen the light of the Godhead fylleth the whole world The light of the Candell is not parted from the body of the candle neither is the Godhead of Christe parted from the body of Christ but as the light shineth ouer all the house and is not seuered from the Candle being onely in the Candlestick for the godhead shineth ouer the whole world and yet is not seuered from the bodye being onely in Heauen Neyther be these my deuises but that great Clearke S. Augustine doth plainly distinguish the two natures of Christ in the selfe same manner writing to Dardanus We do not think that it was sayd according to the humayne nature which God the word tooke of the Virgin Mary This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise for Christ as man was not that day in Paradise but in Hell according to his soule in the graue according to his flesh Nowe if by S. Augustine Christ according to his Godhead were in Paradice or heauen according to his flesh in the graue and yet his Godhead and flesh not parted what partition should this bréede of the Godhead and Manhood to say that the naturall body of Christ is now only in heauen and his Godhead both in heauen and all other places Also it is right to beleeue and without any partitioÌ„ of the two natures that when his naturall body was here vpon earth onely and not in Heauen For according to that Christe sayd I haue not yet gone vp to your God and my god your Father and my Father His Godhead was then both in Earth and in Heauen And why doth it not as well stand with right fayth and without any particioÌ„ of the two natures Now to beleeue that his body is onely in Heauen according to the saying of the Aungell in the Acts of the Apostles Whom the Heauens must holde c. and yet his Godhead to be both in Heauen and in Earth and in euery place For the same S. Augustine sayeth a little afterwards to the same effect Doubte not that man Christ that is christ according to his humayn nature is now there from wheÌ„ce he shall come by the testimony of the Aungell in the same sorte as hée was séene to goe that is in the same fourme and substaunce of fleshe According to this fourme we may not beleue the Christ is euery where For we must take great héede that we maynteyne not the deity of the man so that we take awaye the truth of the body Neither doth it follow that euery thing that is in â–ª GOD should be euery where where as God is For the Scripture speaketh moste truely of vs that we liue mooue and be in God and yet be we not euery where as God is Albeit that man is an other way in God for God is an other way in that man after a certayne proper and peculier manner For god and man is one person and both be one Christ one euery where according
to his godhead in Heauen according to his Manhood And in the ende of the Epistle assure your selfe that Christ is euery where as god and in some place of Heauen for the truth of his body And vppon S. Iohn according to the presence of maiesty we haue Christ euer according to the presence of his flesh it was well sayd to his Disciples Yée shall not haue me euer with you In his booke intituled of the substance of Godheade which is also ascribed to S. Augustine we ought to beléeue and confesse that the sonne of God according to the substance of his godhead is inuisible without body without circumseription but according to his manhoode we ought to beleeue and confesse that he is visible hauing body hauing place and all the parte of man truely Likewise Cirillus wryting vpon saint John doth distinguish the same two natures in the same sorte saying Christ is not here by the presence of the flesh which notwithstanding is euerywhere by the presence of maiestie And Beda in a certaine Homely at Easter The same God man was taken vp in body which he toke froÌ„ the earth but remaineth with the saints vpon earth by his godhead by the which he fylleth both the heauen earth And Fulgentius to Thrasimundus Christ one and the same man locall of man which is God infynite of the father one and the same according to his humayne nature absent in heauen when he was in earth and leauing the earth when he went vp into heauen but according to his deuine and immeasurable nature neither leauing heauen when he came downe from heauen nor leauing earth when he went vp into heauen And Vigilius agaynst Vtiches it differeth very much to be circumscribed wyth place to be euery where bicause the word is euery where but the fleshe is not euerye where it is manifest that one and the same Christ is partaker of both Natures and that he is euerywhere according to the nature of his godheade and contayned in place according to the nature of hys manhod Saint Austen doth name the maner of Christes true body and doth call Christ locall Cirillus affirmeth that he toke away the presence of hys body Gregorie denyeth that he is in this worlde by the presence of his flesh Beda doeth auouche that he was taken vp according to his manhood Fulgentius doth affirme him to be a man locall and to haue a humane nature local Vigilius doth most euidently saye that his fleshe is not euery where But you will say all these thinges be vnderstode visibly and of a visyble presence Truely that is more absurde then the other which doth plainely appeare by viewing the Antithesis or setting of the sentences one against another Vigilius doth say the worde is euery where the fleshe is not euery where Put to visible the sence will be most absurde for you must say the worde is euerye where the fleshe is not euery where visybly neyther yet the worde is euerye where visibly and so Vigillius hath set downe no difference of the two natures For his sence muste be the word is euery where inuisybly the flesh is euery where inuisybly Waigh that of saint Gregorie Christ is not here by the presence of his humayne nature you expound it by the visyble presence for you make this the Antithesis Christ is not here in visible presence of his fleshe which is euery where by the inuisyble presence of his godheade For the not visyble presence and the inuysible presence be al one So there should be no Antithesis no fyght nor repugnauncie of these sentences but that the ancient fathers ment a manifest Antithesis a great repugnancie who is so dull that he doth not vnderstande or so blinde that he doeth not sée sythence by the same they auouch and establish two diuers natures in Christ The one of perfyte God the other of perfyte man Whereby it is euident that the iudgement of the auncient fathers is that Christ his body is not at al in earth but sittteth on the right hande of God the father in heauen not in an Juâ—riâ— or golden throne or in kingly or costly apparel as the symple fansie but in great glorie and power as the faythfull beléeue This is proued by that of Christ in the twenteth of saint Mathewe I leaue the worlde and I go to my Father and agayne ye shall haue the poore euer with you but ye shall not haue me euer Also I go to my father and your father to my GOD and your god Likewise saint Marke wryteth that the Lorde Jesus is taken vp into heauen and sytteth at the right hande of the Father And S. Paule exhorteth all men to seeke Heauen where Christe sitteth at the righte hand of GOD the Father Euen so the authour to the Hebrewes 10. doeth saye we haue such a high priest which sitteth in Heauen at the right hand of the throne of maiesty And a little after he had offred one Sacrifyce for sinne he sitteth for euer at the right hand of God from henceforth looking that his enemies be made his footescoole whome the heauens must hold vntill the time of restoring of all thinges as it is in the seconde of the Actes of the Apostles All this is spoken to set down the diuers properties of the two natures in Christ his deuine nature and his humaine nature and to shew that a man may well expresse the seuerall properties of eche nature and yet in no case part the one from the other But I pray you is there no supernaturall property in the body of Christ hath it no prerogatiues Did the wonderfull vnion of the most holy godhead poure no vertue no force into it Verie many but yet not suche as cannot agree with the humaine nature as saint Austen doth excellently say he gaue to it immortalitie but toke not awaye the nature of it And againe we muste take great héede that we do not affirme the deitée of the man so that we take awaye the truth of the body Therfore the naturall body of Christ is made immortall gloryfied sanctified quickned but it is not made eternall vnmeasurable increat or infynite for these ouerthrowe the humaine nature And that certaine things be so peculiar to the godheade that at all they doe not agrée to the manhood but be applyed only in phrase or speech and contrary that certayne thinges be peculiar to the manhood and doe not at all agree to the godhead but be applied to it onely by phrase or speech is manifest In the firste of John. He it is which comming after me was before me Neyther to be before John doeth agrée to the manhood of Christ in déede neither to be after John to the godhead This is also manifest by these sayings before Abraham was I am and the father is greater then I neyther doeth it agrée to the manhood in déede to be before Abraham nor