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
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
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
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