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
saflie say and affirme that the virgin Marie was the mother of our Sauiour Christ as hee is God and man in one person the reason is because that euen from the verie moment of his blessed conception in the wombe of the virgine the Godhead and the manhood Romans 9.5 were inseperablie ioyned and knit togeather in that one person Iesus Christ who is God ouer all to be blessed for euer and euer But if herevpon a man would inferre therefore she is or may bee called the mother of God besides that hee shoulde speake against the groundes and principles of sounde faith which teacheth vs that as christ in respect of his manhood was without father so in respect of his godhead he was without mother he shold speak very proudly of flesh bloud and very basely of God as though that the creature were in time before the creator or God could not bee without the helpe of pore and weake women 4 To deale with the reseruation circumgestation or carieng it about and with many other odde toies of their own inuention and largely lay out the inconueniences therof would require some proper and fit discourse for that purpose but I wil reserue it til another time making hast now to handle that which shal be as the last so in my iudgement not the least profitable part of this treatie and that is how a man should drawe neere vnto such reuerent misteries to gods glory and his owne good and howe hee may best come to reape and receiue fruite and comforte by the same speciallie sith it pleaseth God to offer to him such excellent graces therby wherein I mind not to deal largely because as you see thorowe all this discourse I professe breuitie and shortnes and to deale fully perfectlie I can not both by reason of the excellencie of the thinges to bee handled and also by meane of the maime that wee find in our knowledg in this life in which we know in part 1. Corinth 13.9 and prophecie in part as the Apostle sayth And yet not to saye somewhat sith the Lord hath made me to feele somewhat were not onelie to deface the graces that God in the riches of his mercie hath bestowed vpon me poore and miserable wretch that I am but to defraude my good brethren and the people of God of some eyther profitable instruction or sweete comfort that the Lord hath beene pleased to acquaint mee withall wherein setting Gods glorie chieflie before mine eies and the good of his children I will trusting in the multitude of his mercies assaye to vtter that little that I my selfe in some measure feele in this matter The thinges that euerie man is principallie to deale in concerning this poynt may in my minde bee well reduced into three short heads or titles Frst because no manne is to doo a thyng without deepe consideration before hande of the matter hee taketh in hande wee are to see what hee is to perfourme before the communicatyng or receauing of this Sacrament and this I will call in one terme preparation Secondlie because in the action and execution of euery good and lawfull thing a man is to haue his mind wholy bent and set vpon the same we are to weigh what he is to do or thinke vpon in the time and at the verie instant of receiuing and this I will name meditation Thirdly because there is no good thing so wel done but the pleasure or profit in time afterward may therby redound to the doer yea because ther is nothing so wel done by men but that by reason of the imperfection of mans nature som thing must stil be added we are to looke what he is to do after the time of receiuing and this I will call action or practise Preparation which is the first respecteth either God or man Now that which concerneth God is comprehended vnder sound knowledge true faith vnfeigned repentance as that which concerneth man is comprised vnder sincere loue And I call them sound true vnfeigned and sincere yet not perfect because perfection properlie signifieng that vnto which nothing can be added can not be found in man during this natural life of his And this I speake partlie to stoppe the mouthes of such as dream of a perfection in this life to grosse an error to bee largelye confuted because Gods word is most plaine in that behalfe the manifold imperfections of those that would seeme most perfect do plentifullie improue the same and partly as in a comfortable sort to teach vs that our imperfections should not hinder vs from drawing nigh thereto so that we do not foster and feed our selues in them seeing that otherwise the sacrament should stand vs in no steed if we were not vnperfect because it is a holie helpe and singular succour ordeined by God him selfe against our naturall infirmitie and weakenes 1 By knowledge I vnderstand not anie humaine sciences or worldly faculties or a meane insight into the groundes of christian religion but an assured vnderstanding as of the most materiall pointes of our faith for example of the vnitie of the godhead of the Trinitie in the persons of the names nature person and offices of our sauiour c. so specially of this point of the Lordes supper it selfe for bee it farre from vs to knowe others and to bee ignorant in that whereof wee are to bee partakers we keeping our selues farre off and free from all erronious opinions either of Transubstantiation consubstantiation or any such like either besides or against the will of God reuealed in his word which as it must onely be the direction of all our actions so must it alwaies bee the rule of our religion alone And this sound knowledge of the groundes and principles of christian religion and that in such sort as god hath reuealed thē vnto vs in his word must of necesity go before al other things both because it is as a man would say the foundation to the house the roote to the tree and also because if wee know not the good will and pleasure of our GOD we can neuer either beleeue or doo the same for euen as in worldlie matters if men bee set about the thinges they haue no skill in they knowe not where to begin or howe to proceede or when to make an ende so in spirituall thinges they are much more blinde and backwarde for in outwarde thinges of this life men may somewhat bee holpen by the light of reason and the liuelines of their owne witte but in the matters of God the more they rely or leane vpon that the further off they are from atteining the trueth because the Apostle telleth vs that the naturall man perceiueth not the things of the spirit of God 1. Corinth 2.14 for they are foolishnes vnto him neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned Roman 8.7 And in another place the wisdome of the flesh is enmitie against God for it is not
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
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
coulde not be spoken of the other without great impietie and vngodlinesse Notwithstanding by reason of the personal vnion excepting alwaies that which is attributed to the whole person and belongeth to both natures as when Christ is called the mediator and such like such things as are proper to the godhead and therefore as wee haue said can neuer be spoken of the manhoode are yet notwithstanding attributed to Christ as man and againe suche things as are proper to man are spoken and that rightlie of God but neuer or at no hand of the godhead The reason is because that the subsistence or being is denominated euen in the concret of one of the natures onelie So by the Sonne of GOD wee doo many times vnderstand 1. Timoth. 3.16 not onely the godhead of the sonne by it selfe but Christ manifested in the fleshe And by the GOD of glorie wee meane GOD become or made man and like wise by sonne of man we meane man assumed or taken of the eternall son of God Whereby it commeth to passe that by reason of that personall vnion some thinges in the concret may bee saide of the whole person which yet notwithstanding in the abstracte 1. Corinth 2.8 doo agree to one of the natures onelie So Saint Paule affyrmeth that the GOD of glorie was crucified which proposition is not true touching whole Christ One and the selfe-same proposition true and vntrue in seuerall senses that is to say if wee regarde or consider Christ as some whole matter consisting of some particulars but not true if wee vnderstand it of all or euery thing belonging to Christ that is to saye if wee seuerally and distinctlye consider his seuerall natures because the name of the GOD of glorie dooth in the abstract agree or belong to the onelie godhead Wherefore this proposition is true in the sense as before whereas otherwise it is a wicked and an vngodlie thing to say that the godhead was crucified Likewise in the creede of the Apostles Symbol Apost we say that wee beleeue in Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God conceiued borne suffered c all which are truely and christianly spoken And why so Because that by the name of the Sonne of God in the councell we meane not God the word by himselfe alone but GOD manifested in the flesh So the Sonne of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heauen Iohn 3.13 the reason is because he that is man is God also and yet the manhoode of christ was at that time no where else Actes 1.11 but on earth euen as nowe also christs flesh being taken vp into Matth. 28.20 heauen and therefore absent from vs that Sonne of man is yet notwithstanding present with vs because the same christ is that true GOD Isaiah 66.1 Actes 7.48 whome neither heauen nor earth can containe Wherefore as these propositions are false the Godhead is the manhoode or the manhoode is the godhead so these are true This man is God and GOD the worde is man Nowe then if man be truely saide to be God by reason of the personall vnion it followeth therevppon that thinges attributed to the manhoode may rightlie be attributed to GOD and on the other side that things attributed to the Godhead may rightly be attributed to or spoken of christ man But let vs now come to the other part of the knowledge that concerneth our saluation that is to christes office This office is declared in his name Matth. 1.21 for he is Iesus that is to say a Sauiour because God the father hath therefore giuen him vnto vs that hee might saue vs to wit from our sinnes Now hee saueth vs by iustifieng vs because eternall life doth of necessitie agree with iustice or righteousnes Wherefore hee giueth vs life in giuing vs righteousnesse and that of his meere and onely grace through the power and effectuall working of his holie spirit One and the selfe-same power of God appeareth in mans creation and mans restitution sauing that this latter in my iudgement and before men though not before God seeme to be the more excellent and hard worke for euen that very selfe-same power of God which laide it selfe open in the creation of man must of necessity manifest it selfe also in restoring of man This is it that I meane as God the father did freelie through his sonne togither with his almightie power which is the holie-ghost create man so the selfe-same god dooth by sauing iustifie and by iustifieng saue man through his owne sin fallen from grace and yet made againe or anewe as it were through his sonne in the powerfull working of the holie spirit For the holy-ghost worketh in vs that instrument which we cal faith by which only we lay hold of christ after that we know him Neither is this faith some simple or bare accident but a habit as they call it in the schooles truelie grafted in vs not by nature but by gods meere and free grace But remember I pray you that by laying holde of Christ I vnderstand the apprehension or taking holde euen of Christ himselfe Two things principallie to be considered in Christ For wee must consider two things in Christ that is to saie hee himselfe god and man and such things as bee in him A fit similitude For example though it may be I confes that the similitude shall not agree in all points if in a casket or boxe I set before a man treasure he that will haue the treasure hidden or shutte vp therein must of necessitie take the casket or boxe it selfe Coloss 2.3 euen so there are in Christ all those treasures of wisedome and vnderstanding yea and to speake all in fewe wordes all those things which are necessarily required to our saluation Wherefore wee must of necessitie haue him that so we may obtaine those things that are in him and by the meanes of them eternall life But tell vs by what instrument wee doo take holde of him as it were by a certaine hand that hee may wholie become ours and wee his Verilie by faith Nowe the holie-ghost is hee who going about to woorke in vs this excellent instrument of faith vseth for that purpose the preachyng of the outwarde worde Roman 10.17 by which worde hee alone properlye woorketh inuisiblye in vs. But that we may the better vnderstand this point lette vs a little compare this naturall instrument of Faith to witte the outward worde with that supernaturall instrument that is the spirite Light of nature may somewhat helpe vs to obtaine naturall things but it can nothing further vs in the vnderstanding and beleeuing of heuenly things The doctor or teacher by speaking teacheth his scholers that which he speaketh For speech is the instrument and meane whereby we lay open the meaning of our mindes one of vs to an other by vnderstanding whereof they to whome wee speake become skilfull in those thinges that wee speake euen
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
such odde deuises and that his â—ustice shall be answered with the works â—f our owne inuention causing vs also â—o thinke that sinne is no heinous thing â—hat can be expiated and doone away by â—he offering vp a poore thinne cake as â—hough that spirituall and innumerable offenses might be taken away with bodiâ—ie exercises and that not of a holie and innocent man but manie times of one of the woorst amongst the people but vtterlie also euacuat by that means and make of no force the eternall preesthood and sacrifice of our sauiour Christ which consisteth speciallie in this that he hath once for all vpon the altar of the crosse offered vp himselfe vnto God the father a full and sufficient sacrifice for the sinnes of the people as the apostle plainelie prooueth in manie places of his Epistle to the Hebrues But no maruell that they should annihilat and deface Christes offices which destroy his natures and by consequent his whole person also as these men doo by confounding the proprieties of either nature as hath beene before declared yea and ouerthrow all their own religion for if the sacrifice of the massâ— as they call it will doo away all sinne what neede wee regard praier to deadâ— saints auricular confession the popes supremacie and a thousand more such abhominations seeing that by setting a soulâ— preest on worke they may haue full forgiuenes and why should we esteeme pardons indulgences and such like trash and trumperie nay rather why should they not liue as they lust not onlie as epicures but as brute beasts seeing he may be assured for mony that that which another performeth for him shall be auailable both to bodie and soule and that to eternall saluation but fie vpon all such beastlie blasphemous dotages 2 Secondlie there is but a little lesse leauen in that matter that they hold of vncomitancie by which they haue not onelie spoiled the people of the vse of the cuppe which both by Christes owne institution by his expresse commandement saieng Drinke ye all of this doth in all truth and vprightnes belong vnto them and by consequent also robbed them of the frutes effects of his bloud as the forgiuenesse of their sinnes and their full reconcilement to almightie God but also accused our â—auior Christ of follie and rashnesse instiâ—uting more signes in the sacrament of his supper than he needed And all this they â—aue done vnder this shadow that because â—o bodie is without bloud and they haue â—efore presupposing that the bread is turâ—ed into the bodie as in deed if men will â—resuppose either vnpossible or vntrue â—hings euerie thing will follow of it eaâ—en the bodie therefore must it needs folâ—ow that they haue drunke also his bloud Tell vs I pray you why might not we as â—ell say respecting alwaies the sacrameÌ„t â—hat when men haue drunke of the cuppe â—hey haue eaten his flesh for if the parâ—aking of the one include the other or if â—hole Christ as they say be in euery part â—f the visible elements then why doo not â—en receiuing the wine as well receiue â—e bodie as the bloud or why may not we â—y that eating is drinking or drinking is â—ting or why doo not they themselues â—minister it in the element of wine oueâ—e as well as in the bread alone or why â—ay not we euen beating them with their owne assertions of an vnbloudie sacrifice and of the reall presence of Christes naturall bodie in the same say and affirme that the bodie may be there without the bloud or the bloud without the bodie for if the sacrifice conteine the naturall and fleshiâ— bodie of our sauior and yet of it selfe it is vnbloudie we see no reason why we may not saflie conclude that the bodie is therâ— without bloud But I know not whetheâ— heerin I should blame theÌ„ for their beastlinesse or reprooue them for their pride that dare thus presumptuouslie alter thâ— Lords very ordinance and institution 3 Thirdlie their adoration is as corrupâ— and filthie whilest they cause men tâ—â— commit grosse and palpable idolatrie iâ— falling downe before a peece of bread what doo I say I know not whether I may call it by that name or no for it maâ— be disputed of whether their masse caâ—â— be bread and worshipping a wafer cake the worke of mens hands And if it werâ— a foule fault in the Gentils to turne thâ— glorie of the incorruptible God intâ— the similitude of the image of a coâ—ruptible man Rom. 1.23 and of birds and four footed beasts and of creeping thinge all which notwithstanding had life in theÌ„ and were in deed the creatures of GOD what must it be in the papists who transforme his wonderfull maiesty into a mustie or whory cake which though it be kept but a small while is yet notwithstanding subiect to putrifaction and wormes But suppose it were Christes body as they say it is yet I affirme that they may not adore Christes bodie alone yea and that they cannot worship the same of it selfe without horrible idolatrie wherof also the reason is plaine and euident namelie because it is a creature to which it is not lawfull to giue that honor that is due vnto the creator alone because he being ielous ouer his owne glory will not haue it giuen to anie other For though it be true that Christ as he is god is to be worshipped as his father yea Christ God man in one person is to be adored yet we cannot without great sin and greeuous offense against God his word worship the humanity or manhood of our sauior Christ onlie And if they will say as I my selfe haue heard some of theÌ„ ignorantly affirme that if Christ God man may be worshipped therefore christ also as he is maÌ„ may be worshipped I answer that besides it is a fallacie or deceit in reasoning called in schooles Fallacia diuisionis it is a flat contrarie to the truth of christian religion which teacheth vs that many things may be spoken of the person of our sauior Christ which can not rightlie or truelie be said of either nature and the reason is because as the vnitie of the person must be maineteined vpheld so must godlie men haue an especiall regard that they confound not the seuerall proprieties of either nature To make this plaine by a point or two A man may saflie say that Christ God and man in one person was crucified on the crosse died for our sinnes whereof also this is the verie true and sufficient reason because in his whole person he performed the worke of our redemption and not in either of the natures alone or by it selfe but nowe if heerevpon a man should say and conclude therfore Christ God was crucified for our sinnes besides that he should vtter an errour or heresie in christian religion hee should speake blasphemie against God whose nature as we haue said heertofore is altogither impossible Likewise a man may
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
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
howe much he did the more debase himselfe Nowe then if the reall taking of all infirmities vppon himselfe sinne onelie excepted hath taken nothing at al from his glorie Hebr 4.15 or impaired and lessened the same how much lesse hath this doone it that he hath for euer taken together with verie flesh the verie proprieties of flesh and that vnchangeably and without confounding But they obiect further Another obiection The answeare thereto that they meane not to abolish those proprieties Thē they must needes attribute contrarie thinges to one and the self-same subiect that altogether in one and the self-same respect to wit to be circumscribed and tied to a place which is the naturall propertie of an instrumentall body The aduersaries absurditie aswel against reason as religion and yet notwithstanding at one and the self-same time to be both in heuen and in innumerable places or else euerye where if you will in earth and so one and the selfe-same flesh shall haue a quantity sette it and also bee without quantitie that is to say shal be both a bodie and not a bodie And what is this else I pray you but to make euery thing of anie thing as wee commonlie say but let vs heare what they do yet further obiect The third obiection They will haue that time that went before the glorofieng of our sauior Christs flesh to be distinguished from that time in which that his fleshe was receiued vp into glorie We grant it An answeare thereto taken from a double absurditie but withall we say that if this reall coniunction of the flesh with the bread doo depend of the glorification of Christes fleshe it can haue no place in that first institution of the supper because this fleshe was not as then glorified but rather most nie to debasing humbling Besides this flesh is offred vnto vs at this present to be partaken by vs not as glorious or glorified The transfiguration of Christ mentioned Math. 17.2.3 c feareth not the aduersaries but that I may so speake euen as it were hanging vppon the crosse Against this exception they oppose and set the miracle of Christes transfiguration But what agreement is there betwixt these two things For of a truth nothing vnnaturall or against nature fel out in the transfiguration neither was there any thing there done that did destroy or ouerthrowe the essential proprieties of christs flesh euen as righteous men shal not therfore or then cease to be very men when they shall shine as the sun Daniel 12.3 or brightnes of the firmament or stars But to be euery where or in many places at one time is a property so cōtrary to al things created as which are indeed finite that it belongeth onely vnto the godhead alone because that alone is infinite To conclude we do in one worde as it were Glorification and wherein it standeth answeare thus Glorification tooke not from Christs body a corporal or bodilie nature that is to say quantity or circumscriptiblenes but it abolished the infirmitie weaknes therof which weaknes he for a time tooke vppon him Nowe by the worde infirmity or weaknesse wee meane not any essential proprietie in christes flesh but that onely which sin brought into mans nature yet altogether without the spot or taint of sin as it was in christ This is that I meane where Christs flesh is saide to bee infirme and weake before the glorification of it that is not spoken in respect of the Godhead to the which hee alwayes hath bin is and shall be inferior but in consideration of that great glory into which afterwards that his flesh was exalted yet so that there must alwayes remaine safe and sound as I haue said heretofore those proprieties of which the very truth of the body it selfe consisteth amongest which quantity and therfore circumscriptiblenes obtaineth so excellent notable a place Cyrillus that Cyrill feareth not to affirme that God hymself could not possibly bee euery where if hee were partaker of quantity They affirme Christes bodie to be euery where He calleth them so because they set themselues against nature and reason Iohn 20.27 Therfore these mē I mean both Vbiquitaries and Antiphisitae hauing opēly denied the quantity of Christs flesh must either gette them to Eutyches his tents and take part with hym or if out of the words of Christ who after hys resurrection willeth some to beholde feele him they wil prooue that he hath not put off the quantity of hys fleshe then they must shewe vs that Christes fleshe accordyng to the quantity thereof can be at one tyme euerye where or in manye places whych euen the godhead it selfe if it haue quantitie can not perfourme as Cyrill openly and truly writeth whose authoritie otherwise these men doo most especiallie abuse for this reall presence of Christ in the sacrament of the altar yea they must prooue that the Angelles lied when they saide Matth. 28.6 Hee is risen hee is not heere For whatsoeuer distinction they may vse if wee can shewe a place where Christes flesh is not then wee are sure it can not be euery where and if it can not bee euerye where then neither can the whole flesh it selfe be at one time and together in manie places Hence also it may appeare Brentius and his followers howe absurde and vnreasonable Brentius his opinion is and those that followe him Philip. 2.6 7. who attribute these wordes of the Apostle The forme of God and the forme of a seruant to the onely humanitie or manhood of Christ in it selfe For they vnderstand by the forme of God that their owne forgerie and deuise of all maiestie and all presence as they call it with which as they saye the flesh of Christ was verily in it selfe indued from the very first moment of the personall vnion which it pleased him for a time not to make manifest and this is it they meane by the worde humbling and abasing And the forme of a seruant they call that state and condition He confuteth Brentius and such as maintaine him as vsurpe the place of the Philippians or rather falsely interpreting it in which it pleased him to remain so often as he wold not vse the forme of God Very well saide surelie if a man wil attribute to one subiect or matter two essentiall forms what shall he els doe but confound one and two together and make them both one And what is that else but to bee mad outright Then it remaineth that by this worde or terme forme these men vnderstand neyther the godhead it selfe nor the manhood but a diuers conditiō and state of this his manhood as which inwardly in it selfe was beautified and adorned with all the powerfull graces effects of the godhead powred into the same and yet that he did not alwaies manifest and disclose them But if this be true Two absurdities or errours we must learn
the spirituall graces not onelie offered but giuen also vnto vs therin and this likewise to be wrought in vs though our sauiour be in heauen in respect of his bodie Acts. 3.21 Psalm 39.12 we heere as pilgrims strangers on the earth by the wonderfull vnsearchable working of his holie spirit in vs and by the meanes of a liuelie assured faith both which being knit togither doo easilie ioine togither thinges that be as farre asunder in respect of distance of place as one end of the earth is from the other and as farre asunder as heauen and earth themselues are or else how could we either beleeue the holie catholike church and feele the communion of saints seeing it commonlie falleth out that the members of that holie fellowshippe are sundered one of them from another in respect of great distance of place or be assured that Christes righteousnesse is become ours seeing he is in the heauen and wee on the earth if by faith we did not take holde of the same and applie it vnto our selues Besides if men should imbrace this sacramentarie opinion what were it but to euert as the trueth of Christes promises so the certeinetie and assurednesse of his word who in plaine termes calleth this holie sacrament his bodie Wherfore be it far from vs to approoue of anie such dotage as defaceth the trueth of the word derogateth from Christe and vtterlie destroieth our owne faith than which what can be more horrible to heare or fearefull to thinke 2 The second extremitie is that of consubstantiation some affirming that there is deliuered to the people they receiue togither with the substance of bread the verie substance of Christes verie naturall bodie so that there is as it were an intermingling or mixture of both the substances in the action of the supper But this opinion is iustlie to be disliked and reprooued not onelie because of the absurdities which it hath common with the heresie of transubstantiation whereof we will speake in the next place but also because it is quite and cleane contrarie to common sence reason confounding and iumbling togither two seuerall distinct substances and making the lesse to wit the substance of the bread to comprehend the greater that is Christes humane bodie yea euen his verie Godhead heauen and earth is not able to conteine Besides it dooth vtterlie take away an essentiall propertie of Christes bodie Isaiah 66.1 Acts. 7.49.17.21 for if Christ in respect of his humanitie be like vnto vs in all things sinne onelie excepted Hebr. 4.15 and we know by the light of reason vnderstanding that God hath bestowed vpon vs yea by verie experience that our bodies are circumscriptible and tied to a place it must needs follow that Christ in respect of his manhood or Christ as he is man is and must be tied to a place and not be in euery place as he must needs be if these mens assertions be true which is nothing els in deed but vtterlie to destroy Christs body which also I prooue against them thus Whosoeuer taketh away the essentiall propertie of anie thing taketh away also the verie thing it selfe This proposition is prooued by this marime in logike If the definition of a thing which cheeflie consisteth of the essentiall propertie of the thing be taken away then the thing it selfe also defined falleth away as for example If reasonable liuing creature which is the definition of a man be taken away what shall become of man or where shall he appeare which is the thing defined whereof also there is good reason because the essentiall propertie is it that constituteth or maketh the thing Hitherto the maior proposition as we say in schooles with the proofs thereof Now foloweth the minor or second proposition But these men take away the essentiall propertie of a thing to wit of a bodie which is to be circumscriptible or tied to a place which is in deed an essentiall propertie of the bodie of man and therefore of Christes bodie as hee is man whilest they will haue him as he is man in sundrie places at one time If anie man will denie this it may easilie be prooued both by their owne writinges in sundrie places and also by the definition of a bodie which is a quantitie that may be diuided according to the threefold measuring receiued amongest men that is length breadth and thickenesse and likewise by the description of a place which is defined to be a nighnesse or touching of the thing conteining and the thing conteined The conclusion therfore is that in taking away place from the bodie of Christ which they doo whilest they place it in euerie place whereas in the nature thereof it can be but in one place at one time they doo vtterlie destroie the bodie or humanitie of Christ or at the least confound it so with the Godhead as Eutyches did that they make a confusion whereas in all trueth and vprightnesse there shoulde remaine a distinction of the proprieties of either nature in his blessed person But of this inough in this place because it is somewhat philosophicall and because also in the next section we shall haue occasion to deale with the like 3 The third extremitie is that of transubstantiation mainteined altogither by the Romish catholiks as they will be called who hold that the bread and wine the substance thereof vanishing away and nothing being left but the accidents or qualities thereof as in the bread roundnesse whitenesse c and in the wine rednesse moisture c are changed and that by the power of certeine words spoken by the preest as they name him ouer the elements they are turned into the verie naturall bodie and bloud of our sauior Concerning this point and the branches therof I minde to speake both more particularlie and more fullie because it is one of the popish opinions that greatlie at this present troubleth the christian world and namelie our flourishing isle of England and also because in the daies of persecution heeretofore both within this land and elswhere it hath beene the common knife that the wicked haue vsed to cut the throtes of the godlie withall as it were the hatchet to chop off their heads It may be that in this my poore trauel some may be conuerted from falshood to truth and so be saued in the day of Christ or if that gratious effect followe not in the aduersaries yet I hope the friendes and louers of truth shall by this meanes be somwhat staied that they be not caried away with certaine inticing and inchaunting wordes in the mouths of some seducing spirites whom Antichrist Satans eldest sonne hath thrust into the worlde to peruert men from the truth and obedience of God 1 First for the name of Transubstantiation I feare not to affirme that it is verye newe and neuer heard of before the days of pope Innocent the third who was about the yeare of our Lorde 1205
bee noted in the first place which I am sure also no man of soūd iudgement can well deny that all woords and sayings whatsoeuer must be expounded according to the subiect argument or matter whereof they intreat and therfore these woordes also speaking particularly of the Lordes supper must of necessitie be vnderstoode of the Sacrament of the bodie and bloud of our Sauior Christ exhibited vnto vs in that supper Otherwise wee must saye that Christ spake of one thing and meant an other which as it might be iniurious to our selues wee not knowing which way to take Christes wordes so shoulde it accuse him for want of plaine dealing which dotage differeth not muche from blasphemie against his person Secondlie I would haue this to be remembred that seeing all one and other both we and our aduersaries confes these woordes to be spoken of the Sacrament wee must not gather that the word bodie is otherwise attributed to the bread than the nature and qualitie as a manne would say of sacraments wil beare for thē if we should grant that wee might easilie destroy and ouerthrow al the sacraments that either haue bene or are in the Church of God because in this behalfe or respect there is a like proportion to bee obserued in one as in al and if one be defaced in respect of a wrong sense the rest can hardly or not at all stande vpright For sith the scripture speaking of Sacraments vseth one ordinarie and common kinde of speach to them all what reason can there be shewed that the words in one sacrament being vnderstoode so the selfe-same wordes shoulde not haue the selfe-same sense and meaning in other Thirdly that this is the nature of all sacraments that the elements and rites vsed in the same be true and effectuall not signes onelie but testimonies and pledges also of those thinges for the signifieng and subiecting of which vnto our senses they were ordayned otherwise the nature of a sacrament should be ouerthrowen which consisteth of an outwarde and visible element and of an inward and inuisible grace and wee spoiled of our faith which is not ne ought not to bee occupied about those grosse and earthlie matters but vpon spirituall and heauenly things only And yet when I vse this word signe I woulde not bee taken as though I meant that they are bare vaine or vnprofitable signes such as painters commonly vse to make but euen thus far forth effectuall that it is no more true certaine that we see the same wyth our eies touch them wyth our handes receue them with our mouths and eat them than that it is also as true certaine that the Lord exhibiteth and offereth vnto vs yea and giueth vs also whatsoeuer they represent vnto vs that is the very bodie and bloud of our sauior Christ the fruits effects flowing from the same to be the spiritual food of our soules to the full possession of eternall life These rules being thus then obserued I gather put downe this true and holie sense of these wordes This is my bodie that is to say that the bread which Christ tooke blessed brake and gaue vnto his disciples appointing the same to bee vsed as the element of this action and to bee continued in hys Church in such forme and sort as he did institute it vntill his comming againe is sacramentally and spiritually beeing receiued and eaten by faith a sure signe and an effectuall pledge that Christs body is become the spirituall foode of our soules And I vse these woordes sacramentally and spiritually that thereby I might meete with their grosse slaunder who when they heare of a sign and a thing signified saye that wee doo euacuate and make of no force the Lordes supper No wee are so farre off from holding any such conclusion that wee knowe beleeue and confesse that the faithfull and duelie prepared communicants doo besides the outward signes and elements truelye receiue by the meane of faith after a spirituall sort that which is represented by the outward elements to wit whole Christ with all his giftes and graces And yet for the dooing of this we do not pull Christes bodie out of heauen or else imagine either Transubstantiation or any such like deuise but onely thinke vpon and beleeue the sacramentall coniunction of the signe and the thing signified for those thinges can not stand with the trueth of Christes manhoode as hath beene before shewed neither indeede are they necessarie to saluation because that to the ende we may be made partakers of christ it is not of necessitie required that his bodie shoulde be really present vppon earth but it rather behooueth vs by the power of the Holie ghost and thorowe faith to mount vppe into heauen and there to lay hold of him that wee may sit with him in the heauenlie places which in this life can not bee perfourmed in anye other sorte than in a spirituall maner and thorow faith which faith is begotten and confirmed in vs by the holie-ghost wherevnto hee vseth as instrumentes the preachyng of Gods worde and the administration and participation of the Sacraments by which all our senses are euen as it were prouoked and pressed wholie to possesse Christ himselfe So that you see I doo figuratiuely expounde these woordes and not grosselie wherevnto I am drawne also partlie by the very dealing of the Papists themselues who doo not either in the wine of the supper the other part of this Sacrament eyther in Baptisme the other Sacrament of the church which two alone God hath giuen vnto it acknowledge anie such grosse Transubstantiation of in our corruption we hardly conceiuing it now in our regeneration newe birth so coulde it not haue bin performed in the godhead alone Not that I meane that GOD was not able to haue forgiuen the sinnes of his people and to haue released them from condemnation and restored them to euerlasting life but that GOD could not by suffering because his essence and nature is altogither impassible haue suffered anye thing for our redemption Wherefore for as much as the question betweene the Transubstantiators and vs is not nowe of the presence of Christes deitie in the Sacrament but of the presence of his humane body we say and flatly affirme it also that if we shoulde grant this yet could it no whit at all preiudice vs neither coulde they gaine their cause thereby for vnlesse they can proue Christ as he is man to be omnipotent and euery where which thing they shall neuer bee able to doo they haue saide as much as if they had saide nothing at all But let vs for reasoning sake graunt them this muche that Christ as hee is man were omnipotent euen as GOD the Father or hee himselfe in respect of his Godhead is Dooth it therefore followe that because hee can doo euerie thing hee therefore either will doo the same or indeede dooth it I suppose verilye no. For besides that in Schooles it is commonlie