all into euerlasting glorie with Christ Neither doe wee doubt but Christ purposed to foreshew vnto vs the second by the first and the third by the second that by that which was alreadie made we might bee confirmed in the hope of that which was to be made VI. As the first vnion was made that satisfaction might bee made for our sinnes so the second is made that vve might bee partakers of that satisfaction Wee beleeue therefore that letting passe those things which pertaine not to this matter in hand wee may come neerer that the Sonne of God by the euerlasting will of the Father and therefore of himselfe also and of the holy ghost like as he tooke vpon himselfe into vnity of his person our flesh that is mans nature conceiued by vertue of the holy ghost in the wombe of the virgine that he might in himselfe purge vs of our sinnes and in that flesh he most perfectlie fulfilled the lawe of God for vs beeing made obedient vnto his Father euen vnto death and at the length the same flesh being offred vp in sacrifice for our sinnes he obtained in himselfe eternall saluation for vs so also that he might make vs partakers of this saluation by sacrifice of his flesh assumed for vs he was willing accustomed to take vnto him and to knitt and ioyne all his elect vnto him in another kinde of vnion namelie in such a coupling as in it wee may bee vnited with him though not into one person yet into one misticall bodie whereof he is the head and euerie one of vs members and may be made partakers of his diuine nature VII As the first is made by vertue of the holie ghost so is the second As we certainelie knowe that as the Sonne of God our Lord Iesus Christ in the first vnion coupled vnto himselfe our flesh and blood by vertue of his spirite for he was conceiued man of the holie ghost and therefore without sinne for which cause also he is called the man from heauen so also in the secōd vnion he doth communicate his flesh and his blood and his whole selfe vnto vs and in the same communion doth knitt ioyne and incorporate vs into him by the power of the same his spirite that alwaies the bonde where with Christ is coupled with vs and we with Christ might bee the same spirite of Christ which as it did bringe to passe in the wombe of the virgine that the sonne of god should be made flesh of our flesh and bone of our bones so also by working in our hearts and incorporating vs into Christ it bringes to passe that wee likewise by participation of the bodie blood of Christ should be bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh especiallie seeing hee stirreth vp that faith in vs whereby wee acknowledge and embrace him for true God and man and therefore a perfect Sauiour VIII The vnion of vs with Christ is spirituall yet so as it is true and reall So we beleeue that this other vnion also is almost no lesse then the former so spirituall if we may so speake that yet it is true reall Because that by the spirite of Christ wee allthough remaining on the earth yet are truely and reallie coupled with the bodie blood and soule of Christ raigning in heauen so as this misticall bodie consisting of Christ as the head and of the faithfull members sometime is simplie named Christ So great is the coniunction of Christ with the faithfull and of them with Christ that surelie it may seeme not to be said amisse that as the first vnion was made of two natures in one person so this is made of many persons as it were into one nature 2. Pet. 1.4 Eph. 5.30 according to those sayings That ye should be made partakers of the diuine nature And Wee are members of his bodie of his bones and of his flesh IX A confirmation of the former opinion hovve straight this vnion is For like as the soule in a man because it is one and the same and no lesse whole in the head and in each member then it is in all the bodie together it causeth that all the members do vnite and ioyne themselues into one bodye vnder one head euen so by vertue of Christs spirit because it is one and the same in Christ and in euery of the faithfull it causeth that all of vs knitte spiritually together both in soules and bodies into one we are all one and the selfe same body with Christ our head a body I say misticall and spirituall because it is ioyned and compact by a secret band of the same spirite X. This vnion because it is made by vertue of the holie spirit cannot be hindred by anie distance of place Whereupon it followeth that this true and reall vnion though spirituall of our bodies soules with the bodie and soule of christ can be letted by no distance of place though neuer so great because that spirite is so mightie in operatiō as it reacheth from earth to heauen and beyond and ioyneth in one no lesse strictly the members of christ being on earth with their head in heauen sitting at the right hand of the Father then the soule of a man ioyneth together the hands and leggs and other members into one bodie with the head yea though that man were so great that his head did reach vnto the ninth spheare and his feete stand fast in the center of the earth So great is the vertue of the soule thē how great is that of the holie spirit the true and almightie God XI The spirit by whome this vnion is made is giuen of Christ to the preaching of the gospell and administration of the Sacraments Furthermore wee beleeue that his spirite whereby christ both coupleth himselfe vnto vs and vs vnto him ioyneth his flesh with ours and ours with his is communicated of the same christ vnto vs by his meere grace when and where and how he please yet ordinarily at the preaching of the gospell and administration of the Sacramēts Of which thing was a visible testimonie which we read how that they in the primitiue church which imbraced the gospell by faith and were baptised in the name of christ or vpon whomsoeuer the hands were laid besids the inuisible grace receiued also diuerse sensible giftes of the spirite XII This vnion is the especiall ende of the gospell and Sacraments Whereuppon we do easily gather which is the principall end both of preaching the gospell and administring the Sacraments namelye this communion with christ the Sonne of God incarnate who suffered and died for vs but now raigneth in heauē and imparteth saluation and life to his chosen which communion was begonne here but was to be perfected in heauen so that we by this true reall copulatiō of our selues with his flesh blood and his whole person may also be made partakers of eternall saluation which was purchased by him and stil remaineth and
a garment For this manner of speach although it doe not perfectlie declare the personall vnion Hypostatica yet it sheweth a manifest difference beetweene the person of the sonne of god taking and our nature taken For this same cause we embrace those kindes of speaches of the Fathers as mans nature was borne of the sonne of god to subsist in the person of the sonne of God and such like separating the person of the sonne of god taking from the nature taken and teaching that the person of the sonne of God by the comming of mans nature was made neither other nor more perfect VII A confirmation of the former opinion with an exposition of the place of Athanasius Surelie we confesse with Athanasius that as the reasonable soule and flesh is one man so God and man is one Christ that is Christ is onelie one person although there bee in him two natures yet not that the person of Christ if we will speake properlie is constituted or made of both these natures as of the parts as to the perfect cōstitution of man no lesse the bodie as an essential part then the soule must ioyne together seeing the person of Christ was alreadie 1. Cor. 10.9 1. Pet. 3.19 and that whole and most perfect before it was shewed in the fleshe but the person of man as of Adam was none at all vntill the foule was coupled with the bodie and sith that nether the soule doth assume vnto it selfe a body or the body a soule as the sonne of God assumed vnto himselfe the seed of Abraham into vnitie of the same person And further sith the bodie and the soule are two existences as it is manifest in the creatiō of Adam but mans nature did neuer subsist by it selfe but onelie in the person of the sonne of God so that verie vniustlie doe some abuse this godlie saying of the holie man for proofe of their owne dreames For he which did shew himselfe and he is the person of the Sonne of god must needs differ frō the flesh wherein he did shewe himselfe and that not onelie before but also after his resurrection and sitting at the right hand of his father which as saith Augustine added a glorie to the flesh but took not away the nature VIII How Christ is one onely person and that eternall and vnchangeable but there are in the same two natures and how it is said to consist of them We therefore acknowledge and confesse against Nestorius that in Christ is onelie one person and that eternall most simple most perfect and the same shall remaine for euer namelie the person of the euerlasting sonne of God Further that vnto this eternall person there came in time not another person but another nature namelie mans nature and the same not as a parte of that person of whome it was taken but a thing farre different from it and yet takē vnto it into vnitie of the same And therefore we thirdly confesse that in one the selfe same person of Christ there is now two natures the diuine and the humaine in which we doubt not that the same doth subsist doth liue and doth worke for which cause also we feare not to speake thus Christ consisteth now of his diuine nature his humaine being taken into the vnitie of person that he is after a sort compounded of them both IX Hovve the tvvo natures are vnited into one person without alteracion or confusion the properties and actions of either of them remaining whole and distinct But we beleeue and confesse that these two natures are truelie and inseparablie ioyned and vnited into one person of Christ that yet we doubt not but each of them remaineth whole and perfect and the one truely distinct from the other yea and that they do hold the essentiall properties and operations of each of them distinct without all manner of confusion so that as the diuine nature holding the properties remaineth vncreated infinite immeasurable simplie omnipotent and simply wise euen so the humaine nature holding hirs remaineth created comprehensible determined with certen limitts And as the diuine nature hath will and power whereby Christ willeth worketh as god such things as are of God so hath the humaine nature will and power whereby Christ as mā willeth worketh those thinges which are of man so farre forth as Christ in that he is God hee willeth not nor worketh by humaine will or power so neither as he is man willeth he or worketh he by diuine wil or power as it hath bin learnedly determined by the fathers both against Eutyches and against Macarius We therefore did alwaies like wel of that saying of Leo the first Epi. 10. c. 4 writing vnto Flauianus about the same thing where he saith He which is true God the same is also true man and in this vnitie there is no vntrueth whereas there meet together the basenesse of manhood and the excellencie of the godhead For as God is not chaunged by the partaking so man that is mans nature in Christ is not consumed by the dignitie for each forme vvorketh with communion of the other their ovvne propertie namelie the vvord vvorketh that which is proper to the vvord and the flesh performeth that vvhich is proper to the flesh Thus farre Leo that learned man which hee afterwards fetteth out by examples whereby it is plainelie shewed that as the natures are truelie vnited in Christ yet remaine distinct and not confounded so also were and are the actions for thinges which were proper to the word the flesh did not performe but the word that which was proper to the flesh the word performed not but the flesh To raise againe Lazarus from death was proper to the word but to crie Lazarus come forth was proper to the flesh yet both those actions were vnited to the raising vp of Lazarus because they were both one and in one Christ tend both to one purpose and yet they were distinct Likewise to forgiue sinnes was a proper actiō to the diuine nature but to say thy sinnes bee forgiuen thee was proper to the humaine nature To restore his sight that was born blinde was an action of his diuine nature but to put clay vppon his eies and to say goe and wash was of the humaine nature Therefore this personall vnion as it did not confound the natures so neither did it the actions but kept them distinct neither yet did it confound the properties of the natures For there be in one the same person of Christ these three things Natures the proprieties and faculties of the natures and the actions of them and these proprieties of natures in Christ are after the verie same manner that the natures and actions are Therefore as it is cleere that one nature passeth not into another nor one action is confounded with another so is it apparent that their proprieties are after the same sorte X. That it cannot bee prooued by the vnion
Eutychians which on the contrary side as Christ is but one onelie person so they leaue him but one nature onelie namelie the diuine teaching that the humaine nature which he assumed either is wholy turned into the diuine or els so mingled and confounded with the diuine that they make no difference at al in him between the proprieties and actions of his diuine and humaine natures Wee condemne also those which haue proceeded from the former as Macarius with his followers which make but one onelie will in Christ namelie the diuine and therefore admit no proper action at al of the humane wil in Christ We condemne likewise the Cerdonians also in this pointe that they said Christ did not truelie suffer nor was truelie dead but that he fained a suffring or as some heritiks say he suffred and died putatiuelie and therefore with these we also cōdēne all which taught or teach the like things as namelie that Christ rose not againe truelie in the same flesh wherein he died but in another of a diuerse nature or else that if he rose in the same yet that he did not truelie ascend into heauen and carrie the same into heauen and chaunge the place of it Wee also also with Hierome Cyrill and other of the fathers condemne the Originists and their like who taught that Christ rose againe with a bodie like vnto a spirite most subtill and in it owne nature inuisible and not subiect to the senses all those likewise as Iewes and Turkes which denie that the worlde is redeemed by the benefite of Christes death Also all those lastlie which goe about to proue our saluation to be grounded vppon any other thing either in parte or altogether then onelie in Christ and blasphemouslie doe auouch that sinnes may bee expiate or remitted by anie other sacrifices then that one sacrifice of Christ onelie For wee acknowledge one onelie redeemer Iesus Christ without whome as there is no true God so no true saluation and one onely sacrifice the oblation or offring wherof being once made not onelie all the sinnes of the elect were once washed awaie in the person of Christ but also beeing yet continuallie washed away euen vnto the ende of the world are remitted to them that beleeue CHAP. XII Of the true dispensation of the Redemption the saluation life which is laid vp in Christ alone and therefore of the necessarie vniting and participation vvith Christ I. Saluation and eternall lise is laid in Christ that from him it may bee communicated to be WE beleeue that euen as the sinne of Adam and death which followed the same remained not in Adam alone but from him as from the head of all mankinde it did and doth flow into all men which by a common generation haue bin and are borne of him so likewise that the righteousnesse of Christ and the eternall life due vnto him is not holden in Christ alone but is deriued into all those who by the regeneration of the holie spirite are made one with him and as true members are ioyned vnto him as head of the whole church and that to this ende and purpose Christ came in the flesh and that all our saluation and life consisteth in him as in our head that it may indeed be bestowed and communicated vppon all the elect of God which are vnited vnto him II. The grace of redemption and saluation is offred vnto all men but indeed is not communicated but to the elect who are made one vvith Christ For we beleeue Mar. 16.15 16 that although the grace of redemption saluation and eternall life which God bestoweth be earnestly propounded and offered vnto all men by the preaching of the gospell for that very manie are not made partakers of the same it is through their owne fault yet is it not indeed communicated but vnto those who beeing from the beginning chosen and predestinate vnto it in Christ as in the head of all the elect that they should bee his members and so made partakers of saluation were afterwards in their time called by the gospell indued with faith and so grafted into Christ and made one with him III. To the true participation of eternall life howe necessarie this true vnion or communion is with Christ For euen as the braunch can draw no liuelie sapp from the vine Ioh. 15.1.2.3.4.5.6.7 nor the bough from the tree nor the members anie motion sence or life from the head vnlesse they be ioyned to the vine tree and these to the head euen so cannot men receiue anie saluation or life from Christ in whome onelie it consisteth vnlesse they be grafted into him coupled in a true and reall vnion and being coupled doe abide in him IV. That we cannot be vnited vnto Christ vnlesse he first vnite himselfe to vs. Sith therefore the whole participation of true righteousnes saluation and life hangeth and dependeth vppon this most necessary cōmunion with Christ and vnto the same is referred both the preaching of the gospell and administration of both the Sacraments yea the whole Ecclesiasticall ministrie Therefore what our faith cōcerning the same is we purpose to declare witnes to the whole church as brieflie and plainelie as may be in certaine assertiōs or positions which after follow Of the communitie with Christ 1. Ioh. 4.10 And first we beleeue that as we therefore loue Christ as Iohn saith because he first loued vs. we come vnto him by our spirite because he came first vnto vs by his and therefore wee imbrace him by faith because he first by vertue of his spirite imbracing vs stirreth vs vp to faith so we also can by no meanes cleaue and bee vnited vnto him vnlesse he first doe ioyne and vnite himselfe vnto vs. For the one is the cause of the other the first of the latter Wherefore we must pray vnto him Ioh. 14.23 that he will come vnto vs and make his abode with vs. V. How many fold is the vnion of Christ with vs and of vs with Christ and how they are ordered in themselues We acknowledge furthermore this coniunction of Christ with vs and likewise of vs with Christ to bee threefold one which was once made in our nature another which is dailie made in the persons of the elect which yet goe astraie from the Lord and the last which shall be likewise with the Lord in our persons when they shall be present with him namelie when God shall be all in vs all And the first is referred to the second the second to the third euē as nature is ordained to grace and grace to glory For the first is also made by assuming of our nature into the vnitie of the person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Of the word The second is made by assuming of our persons into grace and into one misticall bodie with him and as Peter speaketh into participation of his diuine nature The third shall likewise bee made by assuming of vs
personally vnited to the diuine therefore the gifts of God conferred vpon the same are without measure as is declared in the aphorisme following The 12. aphorisme Although when I wrote this confession I thought to my selfe that I had hādled al things which belong vnto this article of the person of Christ yet I thought for the better explaining thereof to ioyne this also which followeth to that which I said before 1 There is and euer was one onely person of Christ For there is but one onely begotten sonne of God and one and the same Christ 2 This person being from all eternitie by the naturall begetting of the father is proper vnto the word but in time was made common to the humaine nature taken to it by vertue of the personall vnion For in the word the essence which it hath common yea the verie same with the father the holie ghost is to bee distinguished from the proper manner of subsisting whereby it comes to passe that it is a certaine Hypostasis or person distinct from the father and the holie ghost and therefore is and is called the Hypostasis or person proper to the sonne or to the worde But this eternall Hypostasis proper by nature vnto the word is by this vnion made common as we said with the diuine nature and the humaine taken vnto it namely that the vvorde doeth no lesse subsist really in this humaine form thē it doth in that diuine form in that respect is no lesse true and perfect man then true and perfect god yet the natures properties and actions remaining safe and distinct 3 Therefore into the vnitie of that immeasurable most pure and most perfect person was taken the humaine nature that is that lumpe consisting of the reasonable soule and flesh of man finite compounded and needing many things But how not so as that for example it cōtained that infinite person within the boūdes or limitts of it owne finite or determinate substance or that it spredd it selfe as it were stretched out into the largenesse of it And that which wee say of this propertie the same is to bee thought and beleeued of all the rest because they all remaine vnchaungeable and vnmixed How then was the humaine nature taken surely it was so taken into vnitie of the same person that yet it is not made the verie person but rather existeth in the person is borne and sustained of the person and euer dependeth wholly vpon the same For this vniō of the natures according to the Hypostasis or vniting of the Hypostasis is made without alteration confusion or diuision 4 Whereby it also followeth that the nature taken to speake properly is not a part of this person as is aforesaid For like as of the vnion of the two natures there is not framed a third nature so neither by taking the humaine nature into vnity of the diuine person is there framed as it were a new person which should be the proper person of Christ and should differ from the person of the word which is the word it selfe For it is altogether the verie same nor doth it differ from it selfe except herein that the same which subsisted onely in the forme of God and was onely God now subsisteth also in the forme of a seruant is also man and before was as a king naked but is nowe clothed with our flesh as with a purple garment so that for this cause the fathers not amisse called the same in some sort a compounded person But marke also this difference besids the rest that the garmēt pertaineth not to the essence of a king but the humaine nature in Christ is in such sorte that without it cannot be defined what Christ is 5 Which is the cause why the humaine nature thus takē is to be reputed acknowledged as it were a part of the person of Christ namely because it is so taken into vnity of his person that as the vvorde with this humaine flesh is said to be and is man so also this flesh in the word and with the word God is said to be and is God as Athanasius Gregorie Nazianzene Damascene and other fathers haue proued out of the scriptures for that flesh is God not by nature but by Hypostasie in which sense the same flesh is omnipotent and present in all places whereuppon it comes also that what honour belongeth to the word of it selfe the same is also to bee giuen to the flesh in the word and for the word because of them both there is but one and the same Hypostasie 6 Add this moreouer for better explications sake that the word although wheresoeuer it bee and it is in all places there also the same is not onely god but also man and that because it hath in all places the humaine nature vnited therunto by Hypostasie yet where soeuer it is it selfe it doth not make it selfe an Hypostasis or personal to the humaine nature but only there where the same nature existeth namely so as that nature is sustained borne and wrought or mooued by it For how should the same be said to bee sustained where it doth not exist the feete are sustained by the soule not wheresoeuer the the soule is be it in the head but onely where they themselues are existing When the flesh was in the virgins wombe the word being then personally vnited vnto it did not thē sustaine the same out of the wombe of Marie but onely it was Hypostasis vnto it in the womb which sustained the same there and not in any other place which is also to bee said of all the time of Christs life when he liued in diuers places Likewise after his death it was Hypostasis vnto his bodie when it was dead and buried sustained the same in it selfe but where surely not in heauen where the bodie was not but onely in the graue euen as also it was Hypostasis to his soule separated from his bodie not in the graue but out of the graue sustained the same in it selfe And now it sustaineth both the soule and bodie together in heauen not in earth much lesse euerie where 7 Neither doth it follow vppon this doctrine that the personall vnion is dissolued neither doeth it come to passe that the whole person is not Hypostasis to the flesh but onely in parte The reason is because this person of the word as it is infinite so also is it most simple and pure and therefore both is wholly Hypostasis to the flesh wheresoeuer the flesh existeth is also wholly Hypostasis in other places where the flesh existeth not being it selfe existing in the forme of god Indeed the soule as is aforesaide is wholly Hypostasis to the head giuing life to it and sustaining it but where not in euery part of the body but onely in that where the head it selfe is and out of the head is also wholly hypostasis to the feet sustaining them too not where the head is but where the
feet themselues are Is then the vnion which the soule hath with the head dissolued because out of the head it is wholly also in the feet 8 Finally that all things which haue bin spokē of this personal vnion may more plainely be declared I add these also The soule is Hypostasis to the eyes to what eyes such as they are namely instruments vsed for sight not for hearing on the other side to the eares for hearing not for seing So the word was Hypostasis to the humaine nature not to destroy death which was a propertie of the word but to suffer death which was a propertie of the flesh Lastly it is Hypostasis to the flesh not to this end that the flesh should bee it and such like which of which sort the word is but it should be it and such like which and of which sort it is it selfe either by nature or by grace reallie put into it which they call infused or habitual grace For the grace of this vnion is this that it is taken into this vnitie of person This same doctrine of ours is confirmed by those things which are deliuered both by the scriptures and the fathers concerning the office of the mediatour that is concerning the end of his incarnation Many ends of this incarnation are noted of the fathers in the scriptures and particularly of Anselme in his booke intituled Cur Deus homo why God is man but the principall and immediate ende was not simplie that the vvorde God might saue vs for he could haue performed it by his omnipotencie and by his onely commaundement without taking flesh but that hee might by such meanes saue vs from death namely by death of his owne person and by his owne resurrection might raise vs to life according to that of the Apostle to the Hebr. 2. ver 14. That by death he might destroye him vvho c. And in the 2. to Tim. 1.10 VVho hath abolished death and hath brought life c. To which the old church consented saying vvho by dying destroyed death and by rysing againe repaired life Leo the first declared this end saying The sonne of God tooke our flesh that by one nature he might dye by the other he might not dye Therefore he tooke vpon him flesh to this principal ende that for the performing of our saluatiō he might doe such thinges by that flesh which of himselfe being in the forme of God hee could not performe as to suffer and to dye For to kill death simply he could by himselfe haue done it but to kill it by death he could not in himselfe doe it without taking mortall flesh into vnitie of his person Wherefore the vvorde did not take flesh that by the flesh it might doe such actions as were the proper actions of it selfe but that it might worke our saluatiō by such meanes namely by the owne proper actions ioyned with the actions of our flesh Vpon the 12. chapter The 8 aphorisme Concerning this true and essentiall vnion of vs and of our owne flesh with the flesh of Christ there is a notable place in Cyrill vpon Iohn lib. 10. cap. 13. Col. 500. We denie not but wee are spiritually ioyned to Christ by true faith and sincere loue but that wee haue no manner of coniunction with him according to the flesh that we flatly denie and affirme it to bee cleane against the scriptures For who euer doubted but Christ is so the vine and we the braunches that from him we draw life vnto our selues Heare what Paule saith Wee are all one bodie with Christ for though we are many yet in him we are one for wee all are partakers of one bread Doth he perchaunce thinke that the vertue of the misticall benediction is vnknowne vnto vs Which being in vs doeth it not also make Christ to dwell in vs corporally by communication of the flesh of Christ For why are the members of the faithfull the members of Christ know ye not saith hee that your members are the members of Christ shal I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of an harlott God forbidd Our Sauiour also said He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him whereby wee maye consider that Christ is in vs not onely by dwelling in vs which is perceiued by loue but also by a naturall participation For euen as if one take waxe melted by the fire mingle it with other waxe likewise melted so as of them both hee make but one thing so by this communication of the bodie and blood of Christ he is in vs and we in him For otherwise this corruptible nature of the body could neuer be brought to incorruption and to life vnlesse the bodie of naturall life were ioyned vnto it Beleeuest thou not me telling thee this Beleeue I pray thee Christ himselfe Verily verily saith he I say vnto you vnlesse yee shall eate the flesh of the sonne of man and drinke his blood yee shall haue no life in you He which eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him at the last day Thou hearest him plainely crying out that we shall haue no life vnlesse we drinke his blood eate his flesh In you saieth he your selues that is in your bodie By life may well bee vnderstood the flesh of life for that doth raise vs vpp at the last daye And so need I not think it an vncurrant speach to say the flesh of life being made flesh of the onely begotten sonne is brought to the vertue of life and therefore cannot bee ouercome of death And therefore being made in vs putts death from vs For gods onely begottē sonne is neuer absent from it whereuppon because he is one with his flesh I saieth he will raise him vp Why then should it be denied that we are called braunches according to the flesh May it not fittly be said that the vine is his humanitie and we the braunches for the identitie or likenesse of our nature For the vine the braunches are of the same nature So both spiritually and corporally are wee the braunches and Christ the vine Thus farre Cyrill In this whole text Cyrills purpose was to shew that Christ not onely according to his deitie as his aduersaries the Nestorians did thinke but also according to the flesh was the vine from which life flowed into vs as braunches and cōsequently that we as braūches were ioyned not onely to his deitie but also to his humanitie and so to his flesh doe draw life and all our spirituall nourishment not onely from his deitie but also from his flesh And the reason is brought from the Hypostaticall vnion which maketh the word his flesh taken into vnitie thereof to bee but one person one and the same Christ one and the same vine Therefore that we cannot be ioyned to the deitie of Christ but also we must be vnited to his flesh nor can we
he shewed howe these sayings and deeds were not the actions of two persons but of one Therefore against Nestorius he also addeth Not in making a diuersitie in vvords or shewing sundrie aspects or seperating the deedes but hee himselfe being one speaking and doing in himselfe and by both that is by both natures that vvhich was agreeable and vvas proper to both the natures By these words we may perceiue these two thinges as cleare as the noone day one that there were not in Christ two which did worke and will vnderstand but onely one namely the very worde incarnate which is called Christ therefore he saith in himselfe being one c. Also hee himselfe being one speaking and doing in himselfe this is the first and that against Nestorius The other is That yet there were and are in Christ working two beginnings of actions distinct in themselues by which those actions as the schoolemen saye were formallie performed by the agent namely the faculties or powers of the two natures and this is against Eutyches And therefore hee ioyneth by both that is by both natures speaking and doing that which is proper to both natures Nowe who seeth not that the the thinges which Christ did according to one nature the same he did not according to the other For he did by both such thinges as were proper to each he did not therefore according to his humanitie such things as belonged to his deitie nor contrary wise Moreouer to cōfirme and set forth the same he bringeth in an example of one the same man who according to the diuers faculties of the soule doth worke diuers actions and bringeth foorth deedes agreeable to each facultie The example appeareth of it selfe there And to make it more plaine c. But we must warily marke his particles not onely the affirmatiues but also the negatiues For he denies that a man sees those thinges with the eyes of his flesh which he seeth with the eyes of his minde and contrariwise Therfore hee also denies that Christ doeth those things according to his flesh which he worketh according to his deitie This he plainely declareth whenas applying the example besides other thinges he saieth of Christ But hauing one propertie by the nature of the word vvhich remaining God he lost not and another by the nature of the flesh vvhich being made man hee receiued c. It is also to bee marked that Vigilius aswell denieth that Christ doeth by the flesh that is according to the flesh those thinges which are proper to the deitie as hee denieth that hee suffred did those things according to his deitie which were proper to the flesh Vigilius also adioyneth a speciall declaration of the proprietie and communion of the natures and the same verie perspicuous certaine where he saieth We vill yet speake more to confirme this nature for their sakes c. The summe is this 4 The proprieties of both the natures are proper to the verie person of Christ but are common to the natures betwixt themselues not in the verie natures but in the person The declaration is this For to die which is the proprietie of the flesh is proper to Christ For in that hee is saide to haue died it is properlie spoken in respect of the humaine nature which is in him Also not to die is proper to him in respect of his diuine nature which cānot die Likewise to die is common to the vvorde or deitie of Christ not in the diuine nature it selfe which cannot be partaker of death but this was common to him with his flesh in the person because the person which carried the flesh could dye in the flesh and Iesus Christ did dye The same is to be thought said of the other part as Vigilius also declareth adding the example of himselfe that is of a mā where he saith And for example sake to say c. In this example there is nothing but that which is plaine But the conclusion is diligentlie to be marked where he saith That therefore which is proper to me in either of them and yet different from either of them the same is common in me to either of them vvhich is proper to either of them And yet I am the verie same one in them both being both of them common in mee and I am the verie same in either of them being both proper to me Nothing can be said more cleare for the declaration of the question concerning the reall communication of the proprieties For first he teacheth that the proprieties of the one nature are so proper vnto it selfe that they are quite different from the other nature and so different that in their proper essence they can by no meanes be made common that is they cā not be so really communicated that the same should be made that verie same or the like vnto the other nature as for example that the humanitie should bee made the deitie or bee made omnipotent or on the contrarie that the deitie could be made the humanitie or be made partaker of passion or suffring 2 He deliuereth in plaine tearms that the proprieties of each nature are proper vnto Christ because indeed it is proper vnto him in himselfe for example in one nature to suffer and in his other not to bee able to suffer so as this he hath common with no other thing either in heauen or on earth or in himselfe For there is nothing besides himselfe that is both God and man and neither of the natures in him hath also the proprieties of the other nature besids their owne in their proper essence Therefore it belongeth onely to Christ God and man to haue in himselfe really therefore proper to himselfe the essential proprieties of each nature both diuine and humaine Wherefore hereby is it manifest also which before was said of the communication For if this bee proper to the person of Christ that these contraries namely to suffer and not to be able to suffer may truely and indeede bee said of him and yet not simplie but in respect of some other thing that is in respect of his other nature Then can it not agree to anie of both his natures seuerally that the same nature should truely and really be said to be able to suffer and not to suffer in it owne proper essence 3 The proprieties of the natures which he said were proper to Christ these hee taught to be made common in themselues not indeed in the very natures themselues but in his person For example To susser which is proper to the humaine nature simplie and by it selfe in it owne essence but proper to the person in respect of some other thing that is onely in respect of the flesh I say this essentiall proprietie of the flesh by reason of the vnion which the flesh hath with the deity it selfe in the same person is made also cōmon to the verie diuine nature it selfe with the humaine how cōmon namely that to susser
is truely attributed also to the diuine nature But how can that be sith passion cannot fal into it It is therefore common to it to suffer not in the owne essence for that nether could nor can suffer but in Christ that is in the person of Christ which consisteth of the two natures and therefore which onely according to the flesh suffred so that in the proper essence of the deitie thereis no passion but it is onely in the common person by reason of the flesh and consequently God is also said to haue suffered when notwithstanding the deitie suffred nothing but onely the person of god man that is he which is God and man suffred according to the flesh I will rehearse this againe The proprieties for example of the humaine nature as to suffer to die they are therefore said to be common to the deitie because the deitie also hath them For if in no sort it had thē the same could be said no wayes to be made cōmon to it with the flesh Now then they are truely said to be commō to the deitie with the humanitie not simplie but in Christ because it hath them not in it selfe that is in the owne essence as the flesh hath but onely in the person of Christ which is one and the same person of both the natures seing it subsisteth in both of them The soule also hath the proprieties of the body common vnto it selfe not in it owne essence as the bodie but in the person of man who as he consisteth of them both as being his essentiall partes so also he hath in himselfe really the proprieties of them both so as he may truely be said to be visible and inuisible mortall and immortall This which is said of the proprieties of the humaine nature common with the diuine not in the proper essence of it but in the common person of both the natures that the same also is to be thought and saide of the diuine proprieties with the humaine we are taught by Vigilius bishop and martyr These things being in very deed thus it hereupon is to bee gathered what manner of speaches may be thought agreeable to these matters If a propriety of the flesh as to suffer be in some sort common to the deitie thē it may in some sort be said of the deitie If it bee not in such wise common to the same as to haue it in it selfe as in it owne essence nor as an essentiall parte of it selfe nor as an accident in the subiect then the deitie cannot bee said in it owne essence to bee subiect to passion But if it bee common vnto it onely in person then to suffer cannot be said of the deitie in the abstract but onely in the Concrete this is by such a worde wherein the deitie maye bee so signified as the person may bee signified with it such as bee the Concrete names as God For by this name so farre forth as therein is signified the person of Christ which is also God and not bare man it is truely and really said that God did suffer and died yet not fimplie and according to his deitie also but onely according to the flesh whose propertie it is to suffer and to dye Wherefore as this is most true God suffered so this is most false the deitie suffred or that Christ also according to his diuine nature suffred This is the doctrine of Vigilius and the whole church But seing that which Vigilius hath deliuered of the proprieties and communion of the natures is indifferently said of all the proprieties and their communion in Christ so that by this hypostaticall or personall vnion the diuine proprieties are said to be made commō to the humanitie in the same sense that the humaine are to the diuinitie namely not in the essences of the natures themselues but onely in Christ and in the person of Christ it followeth like as the proposition is impious the deny by reason of the vnion with the flesh in the person of the sonce of god is made partaker of passion in it owne essence so also this is blasphemous the humaine nature by reason of the vnion with the diuine receiueth of it that it is omnipotent really in it ovvne essence c. Now if we add that which the same Vigilius left in writing out of the common consent of the whole church booke 4. chap. 4. this doctrine which we shewed euē now out of him will more plainely appeare For disputing against the Monophysites defenders of one nature he plainely prooueth by the diuers proprieties which were seene in one the same Christ and which the holy Scriptures do speak of that the word and the flesh cannot bee in him all one nature he bringeth a reason because one nature cannot receiue in it selfe any thing that is contrary diuers besides other things he also writeth thus Moreouer if there be but one nature of the word and of the flesh how can it be but that the worde being in all places the flesh must be foūd in al places too For doubtlesse when it was on earth then was it not in heauē now being in heauē it is not likewise on earth yea it is so farre from being on earth as that according to it we looke for Christ to come downe from heauen whome according to the word we beleeue to bee with vs on earth Therefore according to your opinions either the word with his flesh is contained within one place or the flesh with the word is in all places whereas one nature cannot receiue in it selfe any contrarie or diuers things But it is verie contrarie and farre different to be circumscribed or contained in one place and to be euerie where and seing the word is euerie where and the flesh is not euerie where it appeareth that one the same Christ is of both natures and that he is euerie where according to the nature of his diuinitie and is contained in a place according to the nature of his humanitie that he hath beene created and hath no beginning that he hath died and hath not bin able to dye the one he hath by the nature of the word whereby he is God the other by the nature of the flesh whereby the same God is man Wherefore this one the sonne of God the same made the sonne of man hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh and hath no beginning by the nature of his diuinitie he was created by the nature of his flesh and was not created by the nature of his diuinitie hee is circumscribed by the nature of his flesh and is not contained within place by the nature of his diuinity he is lesse also then the angels by the nature of his flesh and is equall to the father according to the nature of his diuinitie he died by nature of his flesh died not by nature of his diuinitie This is the catholick faith and confession which the Apostles deliuered the
hypostaticall or personall vnion 19 Out of which place it euidently appeareth first that those things which are of the flesh are no lesse giuen to the word then the things of the word to the flesh then that they which belong to the word are giuen to the flesh after no other manner then they which pertaine to the flesh are giuen to the word lastlie that this manner of giuing is called the manner of mutuall pradication not simplie and in the abstractiue names of the natures but in the concretiue noting the person 20 Moreouer what this manner of praedication is and why it is so called the same Damascene expoundeth in the 4. chapter both by example and by the cause in these wordes This manner of mutuall praedication is vvhen those things vvhich are proper to one nature are spoken of the other nature by reason of the hypostaticall identitie or personall vnion of them both and for that the one nature is in the other for example vvee may say of Christ this our god was seene vpon the earth and conuersed with men and this man is vncreated not subiect to passion not circumscribed in any place And the examples added doe manifestlie shewe howe one nature doeth attribute those things which are proper vnto it selfe to the other and for what cause For God in that by this name is ment the diuine essence was not seene on earth but onely in that the person is ment by it which is both God and man 21 Therefore we mislike not that receiued description of the communicating of proprieties The communication of the proprieties is a praedication wherein the proprietie agreeable to one nature is giuen to the person in a name concrete because these two natures the vvorde and the humane nature taken are one existence or person 22 Thus therefore we iudge that the communication of the properties may not amisse be defined the communication of the proprieties is a praedication or a manner of speach wherein the proprietie that is the concrete name signifying the proprietie of one nature is spoken really of Christs person signified by the name of the other nature and is spoken onely in worde of the other nature in the concrete by reason of the coniunction of the natures the personall vnion thereof 23 But we say it is all one to be praedicated or said of the person signified by the coÌ„crete name of the other nature and to be said of the concrete name of the other nature signifying the person as also the proprietie and the concrete name signifying the proprietie of the one nature are in this matter alone 24 For this question was propounded by the fathers against the heretikes not so much about the things themselues as about the manners of speaking which the holy scripture vseth speaking of Iesus Christ when sometime it saieth The Lord of glorie vvas crucified sometime The sonne of man vvhen he vvas on earth vvas also in heauen and other such like namely how such phrases should be vnderstood 25 For none of any sound iudgemeÌ„t euer doubted but as the natures so also the essentiall proprieties of both the natures remained distinct whole and vnconfounded in the person of Iesus Christ after the vnion so as for example sake neither the deitie was made passible and locall nor the humanitie impassible and vncircumscribed as some heretickes falsifying the scriptures haue blasphemed 26 Now the very foundation of this whole exposition was the true and neere vniting of the two natures within themselues and a meeting of them into one and the same person vnspeakably made without conuersion without confusion without diuision without separation 27 For Damascene declaring this after he had taught how those things which are of the flesh are giuen to the vvorde and likewise how the things of the word are communicated to the flesh namely according to this manner of praedicaâ—ation he adioyneth the cause thereof saying by reason of the meeting together of the partes one with the other and the hypostaticall or personall vnion in the 4. chapter This is the manner saith he of mutuall predication vvhenas one nature doth giue the proprieties of one nature to the other which it doth in respect of the personall identitie the ioyning of the natures one with the other Now this ioyning of the natures one with the other is the very vnion that is an inward absolute and most perfect vniting them together As Damascene both els where especially in his 4. booke and 19. chapter expouÌ„deth it saying But the diuine nature once going through the flesh gaue vnto the flesh also an vnspeakable going to the diuine nature vvhich vvee call the vnion 29 We our selues add that this vnion is also the finall cause of this forme of speaking because therefore this reciprocall praedication is deliuered in the holie scripture that the true vnitie of the natures in one person of Iesus Christ might be shewed which is the cause why these verball praedications can by no meanes be said to be vaine or to no purpose seing they haue great vse shewing how the two natures are vnited into one person without confusion 30 Moreouer this same communication of the proprieties for example in this proposition God was crucified we say to be both verball and reall in diuers respects For in that by this concrete word God is ment a person which is not onely God but also man it is a reall predication For because he was man therefore he truly and indeed died But as the deitie is meant by the formall signification as they speake or as God simply is meant thereby it is a verball praedication and that a true one For god is truely said to haue died by reason of the person togither meant and that which is God indeed died not nor could die although he which is God did truely die 31 These thinges thus declared it is easie to iudge of the diuers enunciations which be tru and which false and in what manner of Praedication each one is to be taken Neither one nature nor the proprieties thereof can by any meanes neither in the abstractiue name nor in the concretiue be predicated or spoken of the other nature signified in the abstractiue For it is as false to say The humaine nature or the humanity is God as to say The humanity is the dietie And as false to say the humanity is immeasurable and infinite as to say the humanity is very immeasurablenesse or infinitenes Therefore in all the scriptures is no such kind of speech to be found 32 Neither can one nature or the proprieties thereof be spoken in the abstract of the other nature signified either in an abstractiue or concretiue name For both these propositions are false God is the humanity and the Deity is the humanity 33 Of either of the natures signified by what name soeuer the thinges that are proper therevnto may truely be spoken and that of them both in the concrete but of
of the natures that there is a true and a reall chaunging of the diuine proprieties into the humane nature of Christ For wee allow that axiome or principle of the Fathers against the Eutychians and Monothelities namelie that they vvhich haue the same essentiall proprieties haue also the same natures and essences and they whose naturall proprieties are confounded they haue also their natures confounded Which being of it selfe true in all things then is it especiallie true in God in whome the essentiall proprieties are indeede nothing else but the essence it selfe that it must in verie deed needs follow if those essentiall proprieties can truelie and properly be communicated to anie created substance so that it may be made such as God is as for example simplie omnipotent then the diuine essence it selfe cā also be communicated vnto it so that it might be made equall to God in substance therefore consubstantiall with God if it might be made equall vnto him in power or anie other proprietie So herein is admitted a double that a grecuous offence One is that when we communicate truelie and properlie to a creature those thinges which belong to God wee make the creature equall to god Neither can this exception serue to shift it that God hath them of himselfe but the humaine nature in Christ taketh them of the Godhead For euen the Sonne is not of himselfe nor hath he his diuine essence of himselfe but of the Father yet is he notwithstanding equall to the father and hath the same nature with the Father Another offence is that vvhile vve attribute diuine and so infinite proprieties to the humaine nature as infinite povver we depriue the same of the ovvne and proper qualitie not othervvise then the glorie of the resurrection shall depriue our bodies of the basenesse of corruption vvhen it shall bee truelie communicated vnto them and not othervvise then the cleare light of the Sunne if it bee let into the ayre vvhich vvas lightened onelie vvith the light of a candell it extinguisheth that light For if the infinite povver vvorketh and doth all thinges the finite shall be idle and therefore none at all But sith this heresie euen in our time is largely and plainly refelled by many learned men we which doe here exhibite this briefe simple confession of our faith to the church of God and to all posteritie will add no more to that which hath bin said XI Hovve great the force of this personall vnion is Meane while wee beleeue and confesse the force of this vnion of the natures in the person of Christ to be so great that first whatsoeuer Christ is or doeth according to the diuine nature that same whole Christ the Sonne of man may be said to be or to doe and againe whatsoeuer Christ doth or suffreth according to his humain nature that same whole Christ the sonne of God God himselfe is said in the holie Scriptures to bee to doe and to suffer As that God that is Christ man and God redeemed the church vvith his bloode Act. 20.28 vvhenas the force of the redemption pertained to the god head the shedding of his blood onelie to the manhood Yet both these actions are ioyned in one and each of them may be spoken alike of whole Christ although they were and are distinct because the natures although distinct yet are coupled together in Christs one person Yea Christ the mediatour according to his humanitie neuer did or doeth anie thing wherin his diuinity did not or doth not work together and he neuer performed anie thing according to his diuinitie whereunto his humanitie was not assisting or consenting that the Fathers verie fitlie called all the works of Christ the Mediatour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is performed both by God and man Secondlie as the force of the vnion is so great betweene the Father and the Sonne that he doeth nothing nor communicateth anie good thing to the world but by the Sonne euen so the force of the personall vnion of the two natures is so great that no grace no saluation no life can come to vs from the deitie but by the humanitie apprehended of vs by faith so that hee must needs be coupled to the flesh of Christ that will be partaker of eternall life whereunto that saying of Christ tendeth Ioh. 6.53 vnlesse ye eate the flesh of the Sonne of man ye shall haue no life in you Lastlie it causeth that wee cannot adore the deitie in Christ but wee must also therewith adore the humaine nature and that the diuine and humaine nature must both bee reuerenced with one reuerence onelie according to that same And when he bringeth in his first begotten sonne into the vvoolde Heb. 1.6 he saith and let all the Angells of God worship him Him saith hee that is whole Christ God and man together when as notwithstanding the humaine nature of it selfe and considered alone in it selfe nether can nor ought to bee worshipped for God alone is to bee worshipped but the vnion not whatsoeuer but this personall vnion of the diuine nature with the humaine causeth it Therefore albeit that God dwell in the Saintes yet they are not to bee worshipped nor prayed vnto as is Christ the man Wherfore we confesse this vnion whereof we speak to be of great force yet we saie that it is an vnion which excludeth al confusion and transfusion For if the vnion betweene the father the sonne and the holie ghost in one essence then which vnion there can be none greater thought or imagined doe not take away the distinction of the persons then nether this vnion of the natures and so of the proprieties and actions in one person can take awaye the distinction of the same and bring in confusion XII Christ in that he is man is indued with a very great yet a determinate power and other gifts Finallie wee beleeuē that Christ like as in that he is God he is simplie omnipotent simplie wise and so it may be said of all his other attributes so in that he is man hee is indued of the father with a power and knowledge verie farre yea almost infinitelie exceeding the power and knowledge of all thinges created either in heauen or earth and yet a determinate or finite power and so it may be saide of all his other gifts and vertues loue prudence fortitude iustice grace trueth and the rest of which Esaias saith Esay ii 2 Ioh. 1.14 Luk. 2.52 and the spirit of the Lord shall rest vpon him c And Iohn He was full of grace and trueth Also Luke he grew in wisedome and fauour with God and man For which cause also he is saide Ioh. 3.34 Col. 2.3 in that he is man to be exalted aboue all principalities and povvers also that the spirite is giuen vnto him aboue measure also that in him lye hidden the treasures of wisedome and knowledge Whereby it comes to passe that he in that hee is man is
ignorant of nothing he is able to do all those things which pertaine to his office yea and such things as cannot bee performed of anie created substance but onelie of God himselfe may bee done by him by the power of his deitie yet his humaine wil alwaies working therewithal euermore by consent and as it were by desire so that in all the actions of Christ as he is God pertaining to our saluation alwaies his soule in some sorte ioyneth it selfe thereunto by loue by desire and will as also in all things which he did as man the deitie was alwaies concurrent yea euen in his death and passion not that the deitie suffred but that it willed both the passion and death of Christ and added to his passion and death an infinite power euen to cleanse vs of our sinnes To conclude concerning the two natures in Christ and the vnion and proprieties of them wee beleeue whatsoeuer hath bin determined in the Nycene Constantinopolitane Ephesian and Calcedonian counscels against Arrius Apollinaris Nestorius and Eutyches and in the sixt Synode against the Monothelites XIII Tvvo kindes of actions in Christ and all those things which we read that he did suffred were done indeede according to the trueth of the matter and not after a vaine shew or illusion Now from the person of Christ and his natures and the vnion of the natures to passe ouer peculiarly to his actions and his office First we beleeue that as there are two true natures in Christ whereof each hath had and hath her true and essentiall proprieties coupled together euen as the natures are also vnited but not confounded together so there are two kinds of actions which our Lord Iesus Christ is said partlie to haue performed and partlie wil yet performe for our saluatiō some wherof proceed from his deitie and some from his humanitie and the same partlie haue bin partly are so ioyned together and yet distinct that each of their formes as Leo speaketh alwaies worketh with communiō of the other The word performing those thinges which are of the worde and the flesh those thinges which pertaine to the flesh Moreouer as those thinges which Christ did and doeth by vertue of his diuine nature were true and not fained deeds for he truelie reconciled vs to his father he truelie forgiueth sinnes truely sanctifieth and regenerateth So whatsoeuer we read that he did or suffred for vs according to his humanitie wee beleeue that he did and suffred all those things truelie and indeed and not onelie in a vaine shew and as some speak an appearance onelie XIIII A declaration of the former opinion Wee beleeue therefore that Christ as hee was truelie conceiued of the seede of Dauid and truelie borne true man and did truelie eate drink performe other humaine deeds so also that he truelie kept the law for vs 1. Pet. 4.1 Luc. 24.36 that he truely suffred in the flesh and died and rose againe from the dead in the same flesh and ascended with his visible palpable humain bodie circumscribed with true and certaine dimensions into the true and created heauen placed aboue all these visible heauens Act. 3.21 and ther of his free wil worketh abideth til such time as hee returne againe in the same visible body truely from heauen to iudge the quick and the dead and that he truely desireth our saluation in heauen and hath a care ouer vs his spirituall and liuelie motion and feeling worketh in vs Eph. 1.22 4.16 as his members and lastly that he gouerneth the whole church XV. The fruites of the obedience passion death and resurrection of Christ And wee beleeue that Christ by his perfect obedience deserued eternal life not only for himselfe but also for vs by his passion death he satisfied for our sinns in his flesh he redeemed vs out of the hands of Satan the tirannie of death and the bondage of sinne he reconciled vs to God in himselfe and made vs his beloued that in him wee might bee deemed righteous with the father and by his resurrection and ascension into heauen hee obtained also for vs both the resurrections Apo. 20.5 as Iohn speaketh the first and the latter and that in our name he tooke vnto himselfe possession of the heauenlie in heritance Eph. 1.20 and sitteth at the right hand of God that is hath taken to himselfe power ouer all things in heauen and in earth So that in asmuch as he is our Mediatour and is man he hath obtained of his father the secōd place is appointed head of the church aswel which is in heauen as which is on earth that from him and euen from his flesh is conuaied by his holie spirite whatsoeuer pertaineth to the quickning and to the spirituall life of vs to all those which as members are fastened vnto him their head And therefore wee acknowledge beleeue confesse that in Christ alone is placed our whole saluation redemption iustice fauour of God and eternall life 1. Cor. 1.30 according to that saying VVho of God is made vnto vs wisedome and righteousnesse and sanctification redemption Also be is our peace Also Eph. 2.14 Ier. 23.6 Eph. 1.7 Col. 1.19 1. Ioh. 5.11 Iehouah our righteousnesse In him vvee haue redemption by his blood forgiuenesse of sinnes Also it pleased the Father that in him all fulnesse should dwell Also life is in his Sonne And therefore we know that the promise concerning redemption which was made vnto the first man did receiue accomplishment in this other man Iesus Christ so that whosoeuer will bee made partaker of it he must needs be ioyned to his head Christ be made a member of him For we haue redemption and saluation not onelie by him as a Mediatour but also in him as our head This is our faith cōcerning Christ the redeemer his person natures and office and the saluation of mankinde fulfilled and laide vp in him XVI Errors Therefore we condemne all aswell the ancient as later heriticks which euer taught or teach the cōtrarie Arrius Photinus namelie Seruetus and all other vngodlie men of that crewe which denie the true deitie of Christ the Cerdonians the Marcionits the Valentinians the Maniches the Priscillianits the Apollinarists and the rest which do oppugne the true humanitie of Christ some denying that Christ came in the flesh and that hee had true flesh and doe contend that he brought a phantasticall bodie from heauen or that hee was conceiued of the elementes and not of the seede of Abraham and that hee was not borne of a woman others graunting him indeede a true humaine flesh but yet depriuing him of a reasonable soule and substituting his deitie in place of his soule Also the Neitorians which denied the true vnion of the humaine nature with the person of the Sonne did set downe two persons in Christ and two Sonnes the Sonne of God and the Sonne of man We likewise condemne the
iustly denie Tho. 3. p. q. 2. ar 4 For what proportion can there bee betweene that which is finite and the infinite betweene the creature and creator But by the way confessing with the auncient fathers that it maye be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compounded in that sense as the scripture saieth the word was made flesh and that he which was in the shape of God was now made in the likenesse of man And this is nothing else but that this eternall Hypostasis doth now subsist in two natures so as Christ is no lesse true man then true God Hereunto tendeth it which before we said of the similitude of the soule body for of these two as true and essentiall partes consisteth the person of man how the same doeth not agree fitly euerie way and yet we allow of the same similitude in that sense which Athanasius and other fathers vsed it to shew the true and substantiall vnion of the two diuerse natures although it do not fully agree in all things to this great misterie as Iustinus in his exposition of faith and other fahters haue freely cōfessed The similitude of the garment is much vsed of the auncient fathers especially of Athanasius and it is agreeable to the scriptures For the flesh of Christ wherewith his deitie was couered the Apostle calleth a vaile Heb. 10. ve 20. And most excellently by this similitude of the garment that opinion of the reall imparting and communication of the diuine proprieties with the humaine nature is quite ouerthrowne which some doe much labour to prooue by the similitudes of a fire-hoatiron and of a bodie with life in it which they can neuer doe The seuenth aphorisme We haue said that the bodie and the soule are two existenees which is manifestly prooued in Adam whose bodie did first subsist by it selfe then the soule being also a substance subsisting by it selfe was ioyned vnto it The same is also prooued by the separation of the soule from the body whereof each doeth remaine subsisting by it selfe But seing they are the essentiall partes of a man each of them indeed seuerally are existences but yet vnperfect and being ioyned they make a perfect existence that is the person of man But thus standeth not the case in Christ touching the diuine and humaine natures for his humaine nature neuer subsisted by it selfe any waies before he took it on him nor subsisteth yet after the taking but onely in the word which word was euer by it selfe a most perfect existence The 10. aphorisme The similitude of the sunne doth not altogether so fittly agree as that similitude of the glorie which our bodies shal receiue because that glorie shal cleane take away al the shame and reproch of our flesh but the sunne doeth onely dimme the light of a candle and not cleane put it out yet notwithstanding this similitude of the sunne doth plainly shew what we meane namely that by the reall communication of the sunne with the ayre the light of the candell is made altogether vnprofitable and so as it were put out and to be no light at all yet that the essentiall proprieties of the flesh are neuer quite taken away or so weakened by the personall vnion that they serue to no vse it is manifest And yet this indeede could by no meanes be auoyded if the humaine nature should really participate with the diuine omnipotencie so that it could doe whatsoeuer God could doe For the word the sonne of God neuer tooke vnto him held or holdeth any thing in vaine Therefore by this similitude of the sunne is strongly confirmed that which is prooued by the similitude of the glorie which shall take awaye all ignominie from our bodies The 11. aphorisme That same whole Christ c. Here in the first part to the name of Christ is added the sonne of man in the other parte the sonne of God God that we might shewe how that diuine attributes are spokē of Christ the man and humaine of Christ God seing the very person of Christ is ment in either part For the same Christ one and the same person is whole God whole man though not wholy as Damascene speaketh for in two distinct natures he subsisteth one and the very same This doth Damascene thus declare lib. 3. cap. 7. The whole Christ is perfect God but the vvhole subsistance of Christ is not onely God for it is not onely God but also man And the vvhole Christ is perfect man but the whole subsistance of Christ is not onely man for it is not onely man but also God For the whole subsistance doth represent the nature but whole Christ the person But whereas we spake of his actions done by him either according to his humane nature or according to his diuine that yet one and the same and whole Christ performeth the same it depēdeth vpon this that the actions were as the schools say of supposite natures But the diuersitie of the actions proceedeth from the diuersnesse of the natures or formes by which they were done Sith therefore there is in Christ two natures and but one person thereon it comes that there is but onely one worker namely whole Christ two natures that can worke and two kinde of actions Now these actions are called the actions of God and man not so much for that they proceede from one agent which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and man as that not onely the deitie but also the humanitie meet together for this worke of our saluation each ioyning his actions with the others actions And this is the first and principal force of this hypostaticall or personall vnion namely that by it the two natures and their properties actions are so vnited in one and the same person that he who by the forme of God wherin he hath frō the beginning subsisted is God and by the forme of a seruant wherein he now subsisteth is man and the same being whole God is whole man and being whole man is whole God and consequently is wholy omnipotent and euerie where present whole inomnipotent and existing in a certen place and the same whole died and whole by dying destroyed death And thus it finally followeth that to the obtaining communicating applying of our saluation not onely his diuine nature worketh but also the humaine worketh with it The secōd force followeth of the first namely that the humaine nature was made the deities instrument vnited personally thereunto and therefore a most forcible and effectuall instrument to bestow all benefites vpon vs. The third that by this vnion this masse or lumpe of humaine nature is lifte vpp to such dignitie that we neither can nor ought to bēd our actions of adoration faith prayer loue to the onely deitie of Christ as is declared in the confession For we are cōmaunded to worship the sonne himself that is the person Heb. 1. and to beleeue in him The fourth force is that because this humaine nature is
anie portion of gouerning and keeping the clergie is committed and also a watchfullnes and inquirie that there be none in this order vngarded or vnlooked vnto Thus farre Bucer not onely rehearsing but also commending the custome of the auncient church ordaining diuers orders of ecclesiasticall functions whereof we before spake I should also haue had consideration of those churches which albeit they imbrace the gospell of Christ Iesus yet they still retaine their bissiops and Archbishops both in deed and name What that in the churches euen of the protestants neither bishops indeed nor archbishops are wanting whome hauing turned the names out of good greeke into badd latine they call Superintendents and generall Superintendents yea there also where neither those old names in good greeke nor these newe in ill latine are vsed at all yet there are wont to bee some superior persons in whose hands is almost the whole authoritie The controuersie then hath beene about the names but seing wee agree about the thing why should wee cōtend about the names By the way as I did not disallow the Fathers in that matter whereuppon the question is so can I not but loue the zeale of our men which do therefore hate those names because they are afraide least with the names the old ambition and tirannie should bee brought in againe to the destruction of the church Aphorisme 12. For neither did Christ ordaine any such head neither would the fathers admit therof because it was not expedient for the church but contented themselues with the foure Patriarches of Rome Constantinople Antioch and Alexandria all which were of an equall authoritie and power and euery of them conteined within his owne bounds as also it was decreed in the coūcel at Nice cōfirmed in others that not without many very weightie causes whereof in my iudgement this was not one of the least least there should bee a doore set open to tirannie in the church but rather if that any one durst attempt any thing against the sound doctrin of Christ against the libertie of the church then the other archbishops with their bishops of no lesse authoritie might oppose themselues against him suppresse his insolencie and cut of his tiranny The church in respect of Christ is a kingdome in respect of men which are in it and ether rule or be ruled it is an Aristocracie Aphorisme 21. These be two questions farre differēt whether bishops may also be princes and princes bishopps keeping also their principalities in their hands and whether they which are both bishops and princes besids their ecclesiastical authoritie may also haue ciuill power ouer those that are their subiects and so whether their subiects must obey them as princes or not In my Aphorisme I spake not one word of the former question for it was not needful but onely of the latter Now who seeth not how I shewed by apparent demonstrations that princes must be wholly obeyed howsoeuer rightfullie or wrongfullie they bee made princes For why should not they that are subiects both to the princes and Archbishops of Colone Mentz and Treuers in matters that are not repugnant to christian pietie be obedient vnto them Surely it were meere sedition in them not to obey them And if to these why should not they also which are within the iurisdiction of the bishop of Rome in the same matters for the same cause obey him For there is one and the same reason of them all Of the former question as I saye I spake not at all neither purposed I nowe in this briefe confession to discourse thereof knowing that all are not herein of one opinion much may be said to and fro both wayes that place in the 20 of Mat. Yee know that the Lords of the Gentiles haue dominion ouer them and they that are great exercise authoritie ouer them But it shall not bee so among you some expound it one waye of the Apostles onely and ministers of the word others another waye of all Christs disciples and all christians An appendix to the eleuenth chap. Of Christ the redeemer or of the person of Christ THey which write that the essentiall proprieties of the diuine nature are reallie communicated to the humaine nature not that they be in the same either essentiallie and formally or subiectiuelie and habitually but onely by the reason and respect of the personall or Hypostaticall vnion for so they speake darkelie indeede and ambiguouslie when both they might and ought to speake plainer if they meane this in no other sense then as Vigilius writ and thought namely that the proprieties of the natures are made proper to Christ himselfe but are common to the natures betwixt themselues not in thēselues but in Christ that is in his person I will not surelie gainesay them neither do I thinke that any good or learned man will gainesay them For Vigilius according to the catholick churches doctrine speaking out of the councell at Calcedon said and declared that the proprieties of the humaine nature were made commō to the diuine in the verie same sense that the diuine are also saide to bee communicated to the humaine But now these proprieties of the humanitie as to suffer or to die are so communicated to the deitie that for all that yet the verie deitie is not made in verie deede passible or mortall the cause whereof Vigilius setteth downe to be this namelie because to die and to suffer are not made common to the deitie but onely in the person so that they can not truely be said but of the humaine nature by it selfe and of the person in respect of the humaine nature Wherefore we must euen so thinke and saye altogether of the communication of the diuine proprieties Vigilius owne wordes bee these booke 5. chap. 2. And now sith out intention is chiefly bent against those which following the error of one nature doe with a willfull obstinacie resist the decree of the Calcedon councell I thinke it not amisse for the remoouing of their vaine contradictions and beating to peeces their glassie opinions with the mallett of truth to rehearse some fewe things concerning the humaine nature of the sonne of God which they euerie waye denie to be in him and to shew what want of christianity is in them and how farre of they bee from the hope of euerlasting life It is a rule of the catholick faith to confesse one and the same Lord Iesus Christ as true God so also true man one of them both not two into one the same without all time borne of the father the same in time borne of the virgine so that each of these births do so hold on Christ that he suffred not any losse in either retaining in himself that was proper to him both waies that is that the nature of the word should not be chaūged in the flesh the nature of the flesh was not swallowed vpp in the word Hereuppon the same Lord Iesus Christ
is true God and the same true man existing vnspeakably of two natures vnited together in one person in the virgines wombe which natures seing that in this wonderfull covnion they are not abolished in him to shew a plaine extance and appearance of the proprietie of them both in himselfe being one he did and spake thinges belonging to both not deuiding the wordes nor parting the aspects nor seperating his deeds but he himself being one speaking and doing in himself and by both that which was agreeable and was proper to both natures And to make it more plaine which we haue said let vs vse an example as thus I my selfe am hee which with my bodilie eyes doe behold a white colour or a blacke and againe I am hee which by sight of my minde doe iudge of the euill of iniquitie and the good of righteousnesse yet notwithstāding I am not now diuers persons because I doe both these in a diuerse respect For I doe not see the difference of coulours with the same eyes with which I see the diuersitie of speaches and yet I am the verie same which doe this both the wayes both are in me not to see righteousnesse but onely with the eyes of my minde and it is in me not to see colours but onely with the eyes of my flesh and it is in me not to heare wordes with my eyes and in me not to see light with my eares in me not to iudge of tastes with my nose and in me not to perceiue smelling at my mouth And whereas it is wholly mine owne proprietie in my selfe to see to heare to smel to taste and yet it is one thing in me whereby I see another whereby I heare another wherby I taste or smell and all this being in me wholly and yet in a certaine priuate respect deuided and diuers I my selfe notwithstāding cannot be deuided or seperated So therefore Christ himselfe also being one and the same created and not created hauing beginning being without beginning growing in age vnderstanding and receiuing no increase of age and vnderstanding suffering death not yeelding to the lawes of death receiuing honor for his desert yet hauing need of no mās honor and al these things being diuers in him yet are meerely proper vnto himselfe And therfore he diuideth not in himself the words affects and deedes agreeable both wayes in himselfe because both are properly his owne yet hauing one proprietie by the nature of the word which remaining God he lost not and another by the nature of the flesh which being made man hee receiued Wee will yet speake more to confirme more plainely this one nature for their sakes which through their vnsaide skilfullnesse not vnderstanding the proprietie and communion of the natures howe it is said to be in Christ do abuse and vtterly refuse the same words It is diuerse and another thing not to haue beginning and to subsist by a beginning to die and not to bee able to suffer yet as they are both proper vnto Christ so are they both common not vnto him but in him For if wee say common vnto him we must needs bee vrged and driuen to giue and shew some other with whom the same should be common vnto him which necessity of instance cannot but incline to the impious opinion of Nestorius We therfore better and more catholically saye it is common in him and not to him and so wee say better it is proper to him and not in him Therefore it is proper to him to dye by the nature of his flesh which is mortall and it is proper to him not to dye by the nature of the vvord which cannot dye Likewise by that vnspeakable misterie of the vnion of both the natures the mortallitie of the flesh was common in him to the nature of the vvord which could not dye and the immortalitie of the vvorde was common in him to the nature of the flesh which yeelded to death Therefore as it is proper vnto him in respect of both natures to dye and not to dye so it is common in him in both natures to doe that which is their proprietie and as I maye for example sake say it is proper to me to carry the marke of the blacknesse of a stroakein my bodie by the nature of my flesh so it is proper to me to carrie the stripe of a word that is of some hard speach in my minde by the nature of my soule and it is also proper to me not to carrie the same stripe of wordes in my bodie by the nature of my flesh And sith both these are proper to me and both of them different from my bodie and from my soule because neither my bodie vnderstandeth anie hard or any pleasing speaches neither can my soule be made blacke by the stroake of a whipp yet both these are common in my selfe both to my soule and to my body because neither my soule placed out of my bodie doth feele that which is proper to it to feele nor my bodie without the companie of my soule can carrie the marks of the blowes That therefore which is proper vnto me in either of them and yer different from neither of them that is common in my whole selfe to either of them which is proper to either of them And yet I am the verie same in them both being both of them common in me and I am the very same in either of them being both proper to me This saith Vigilius What can more fittly be said for the deciding of this present controuersie of the reall communication of the proprieties For this whole treatise of Vigilius is resolued into these speciall propositions pertaining to our cause For setting first downe a rule of the catholicke faith which in the text is marked with the letter A then from the same hee draweth certaine positions by which he manifestly confuteth the heresie of Eutyches The summe of that rule of faith is this that one and the same Christ is God and man both natures are kept whole in him Out of this rule Vigilius gathered these positions 1 The Lord Iesus Christ is the same true God and the same true man The reason for he existeth of two natures the diuine and the humaine vnspeakablie ioyned and vnited together in one person and that in the virgins wombe This is against Nestorius against Eutyches is added another position 2 These natures in that wonderfull covnion are not abolished in Christ The confirmation followeth by the life of Christ because the Lord Iesus both by his sayings and deeds did shew that the proprieties of both the natures remained safe and whole in him therefore he addeth 3 To she we an extancie that is an existence of the proprieties of them both in himselfe being one namely that the proprieties of both the natures did exist distinct in him he spake and did things of both natures himselfe being one This is also against Eutyches But how namely so that
Martyrs confirmed and the faithfull do yet assuredly hold Thus saith Vigilius By this the very same is vndoubtedly prooued which was also by the other before namely not onely that the worde and flesh cannot possiblie be both of one nature as the Monophysites affirmed but also that the proprieties of the one nature cannot really be communicated to the other so as indeed it should haue the same in it selfe and that the one nature should be made the very like that the other is as thus that the flesh by reason of the vnion with the word should also with the same word bee made present in all places in it owne esseuce For from this proposition which is held for graunted of all sound beleeuers namely The flesh through the vnion with the word hath not gotten this proprietie of the word that it selfe should with the word be present in all places in it owne substance from this proposition I say he concludeth therefore neither is it made of the same nature with the word This certenly is the argument of Vigilius yea of the whole catholicke church What remaineth onely this that if it may be said to bee present in all places it can be said to bee so by no other meanes then by the Hypostasie of it which is the very word For in Christs humaine nature there be only two things the proper essence of his nature with his proprieties and gifts created and the common Hypostasis with the diuine which is the word it selfe His proper essence is finite or determinate and so is onely within one place The Hypostasis is infinite immeasurable and most simple or vnmixt And therefore in this onely and not in the proper essence the flesh of Christ can be and in verie deed is present in all places That which hath bin said of this propriety the same is also to be thought of all the rest aswell those of the word as of the flesh For also in the argumēt before going against the Monophysites book 4. chap. 4. he concludeth the same from certaine proprieties of the word as is to be vncreated inuisible vntouchable said that it is impossible the flesh should partake in those qualities Hereuppon he concluded therefore the flesh cannot bee of one nature with the word sith it can by no meanes be made inuisible vncreated vntouchable vnderstand this in it owne essence whereas notwithstanding in the Hypostasis of it which is common to it with the vvorde it is in verie deed as in all places present so also vncreated inuisible vntouchable and what not seing in the same Hypostasis it is also god These things are all most assured and plaine and do depend vpon that infallible rule which he deliuered in the fift booke and second chapter namely We saye better and more catholically it is common in him and not vnto him And we say better it is proper to him and not in him I beseech all christians by our Lord Iesus that setting aside all the vaine dreames of priuate men and reiecting all the affections hatreds enmities of their flesh and imbracing the assured and wholesome doctrine of the aūcient church and christian loue wee maye all ioyne together into one holy league of friendship euen as we haue all one God one mediatour one baptisme one hope of our vocation to the glorie of Gods name the building vp of the church the saluation of our soules For sooner then we suppose shall wee be summoned before Christs tribunall seate that euerie one may giue account for that which he hath done in the bodie and in this life seing that after this life there is no hope of pardon no place for amendment CERTAINE POSITIONS OF THE same Zanchius Of some principall articles of our christian faith against diuers heresies at sundrie times disputed on partly at Heidelberg partly at Newstade FOr what purpose I published this confession with my obseruations vpon it for the verie same cause at this time haue I gathered together these positions concerning sundrie matters in question which were handled partly vnder Frederick the third of godly memory at Heidelburge partly vnder my fauourable Lord Iohn Cassimier erector of this schoole here at Newstade against diuers heresies and being all brought together I thought good to haue them printed with my confession thereby that al posteritie might euidently see that I neuer consented to any of these heresies which in these dayes of ours haue beene fetcht againe from the depth of hell and this to Gods glorie the edification of the church and the saluation of manie through our Lord Iesus Christ Amen Of one true god eternall father sonne and holy ghost yeare 1572. 1 THere is one onely Iehouah creatour of heauen and earth and God of Israell 2 And this God though he bee one onely Iehouah yet is he not one but meere Elohim the number and names of whome the sonne of God manifested in the flesh hath clearlie and apparātly reuealed vnto vs without all doubt namely the eternall father the eternall sonne and the eternall holie ghost 3 Further these three Elohim are true existences and those vndeuided liuing vnderstanding willing and therefore as the church hath euer vsed to speake true persons 4 And the father sonne and holie ghost are so distinct among themselues as the one is not the other 5 Yet euerie one of them is the true Iehouah 6 Yet are there not therefore manis Iehouahs but onely one Iehouah Of the nature singularitie and immeasurablenes of one true God yeare 1573. 1 BY the name of the nature of God is vsually signified not onely his essence simplie considered in it selfe but also all his proprieties or attributes by which hee is declared to vs and for our sakes of what sort he is 2 And therefore God is rightly saide of his owne nature to be gentle wise good and such like 3 But albeit hee vseth to applie many qualities like to this his owne nature vnto men by which wee are made iust good wise yet his owne nature he doth communicate to no created thing which hee cannot indeede communicate vnlesse their could more Gods bee made 4 God also besides his other proprieties is simplie simple or vnmixt that he can no waies be said to be compounded of many things no not of his being and essence 5 For although hee attribute vnto himselfe manie thinges in the Scriptures as it were manie qualities as to bee good iust mightie c yet no quality doth in very deed fal into god but of what sorte soeuer hee is the same hee is in his owne simple essence but by these diuerse names the infinite perfection of his most simple essence is signified vnto vs. 6 But God not onely admitteth no composttion in himselfe but also falleth not into concretion or substance of any created thing as that he should bee either the forme or matter thereof 7 God is furthermore truely immeasurable and in finite therefore present euery where and that
not in his power vertue onely but in his whole essence filling heauen and earth and all the world 8 But although he bee in euery place present yet hee is more said to bee in heauen then in earth and more in his children then in wicked men and more in one godly man then in another but this not in respect of his essence but by the power of his working and of his grace 9 Wherefore when we read in the Scriptures howe God doeth either depart from vs or returne to vs we must beleeue he doth not so by chaunging of place but by the effectes of his presence both internall and externall either shewing them or withdrawing them 10 Yet he is in the humaine nature of Christ in a farre other manner then in vs namelie not onely in a more effectuall operation but also in dwelling in him corporallie and as a part of a thing compounded so as he is true God but we cannot be so 11 But further it is so Gods propertie to bee immeasurable and infinite and consequentlie also euery where present as that it can belōg to no thing created no not to the humaine nature of Christ 12 For like as it cannot bee that any creature can be made God in essence so neither can it bee that that which is not God should in it owne essence exist euery where sith it can neither be infinite nor immeasurable 13 Wherefore like as by this that Christ is shewed to be euery wherein his own essence he is prooued to be true God So if any would prooue the bodie of Iesus Christ to exist euerie where in it owne essence they must either denie that Christs deity is prooued by that argument or els they must needs frame a new god and that a corporall one 14 Christs bodie indeed is present not onely in it owne vertue but also in substance to the minds of all godlie men receiuing the same by true faith and so by Christs spirite growing more and more into one with the same Christ no lesse nay more then the sunne is to the eies of al them which see but yet Christs body can aswel exist in many places at once much lesse euerie where in that manner of existing where in it is in heauen as the bodie of the sunne can exist in al the pattes of heauen and earth in the verie same sorte that it is in his owne spheare 15 Yet hereupon followeth it not as some do impudently cauill that the eternall and true deitie of Christ is denied but contrariewise it is rather prooued sith the vvorde of the deitie is defended to be of that sort as it can be imparted to no created thing so as the same should be God in essence or equall to God in any diuine proprietie 16 For God could not bee the word if of what sort he is of the same sorte any creature might be made no though it be a spirituall creature much lesse a humaine bodie 17 On the other side rather they that wil haue his diuine and essential proprieties so powred into the humanitie of Christ that it is aswell almightie and euery where as is his deity they doe not onely open a wide gate to the Arrians but euen take away the true deitie of Iesus Christ 18 For hee is not indeede true God whose essence and nature can be so really powred into any thing created as that the same may bee made altogether such as the same God is really and by it selfe infinitely mighty infinitely wise extending it selfe as I may say endlesly and by that meanes actuallie existing euerie where in it owne essence 19 For the essentiall proprieties of God are in verie deed nothing els but his verie essence seing otherwise it could not be most simple 20 To say then that Christs humanitie is aswell made almightie and euerie where present as is his deitie is as if thou shouldst saye that it is made such in it owne essence and nature and therefore is true God 21 Now such a deity is no true deitie therefore the vvorde which is horrible blasphemie shall not be true God 22 Add that it is not onely most absurdly but also most impiouslie saide that the proprieties of the diuine nature are powred into the humaine 23 For neither did we euer reade that the word or any proprietie thereof was powred into Abrahams seede as contrarie wise we read that Abrahams seede was taken by the sonne of God neither could the proprieties of the word be powred into the humaine nature without powring of the nature it selfe and the diuine essence seing they are in verie deede nothing else but the diuine essence 24 But the diuine nature cannot be transfused into the humaine but that the vnion of the natures must cease and so a mixture and confusion must be made and they which are so mixed do cease to be that which they were 25 Now therefore we say that deitie to which any created thing can bee made equall is not a true deitie 26 For it would needs be that either the thing to bee made equall must bee made infinite which is altogether impossible or els the same deitie to which it is to be made equall must be finite seing nothing that is finite can be made equall but onely to a thing finite But a deitie finite is no true deitie Of the eternall omnipotencie of one true God yeare 1575. 1 WHen in the Scriptures god is called mightie we must not conceiue in our mindes that there is a passiue might in God whereby he may suffer any thing or leaue to be that which he is or become that which hee is not by any chaunge of himselfe but we must with a firme faith beleeue as it is indeede that hee hath onely an actiue power whereby he alwaies worketh and can worke 2 For god is an essence most simple most perfect truely eternall voide of all passion and vnchaungeable and most powerfull of whom and by whome all things are made 3 Yet wee must not imagine any such actiue power in God which is a diuers thing from his essence 4 For God in his owne most simple essence is such whatsoeuer he be iust good or almightie 5 And although there be indeed but one onely power in God yet for the diuers respectes wherein he is considered it may be saide not impiouslie to be manifold 6 For it is one respect when it is considered as God workethal waies in himselfe in vnderstanding willing louing and another respect when wee behold it as God hath wrought outwardly or without himselfen in creating the world and as he euermore worketh in gouerning the same and as he could worke innumerable things if he would 7 Therefore as the actions of god are not vnfittly distinguished into abiding actions and passing so the power of God may not vniustly be called two-fold one wherein he euer from all eternitie did worke and doeth worke in himselfe the other wherein he did not
onely make ruleth and worketh all thinges in time without himselfe but also can bring to passe infinite things which he neuer will doe 8 Whereuppon it is also that the same is vsually deuided into actuall power which worketh whatsoeuer hee will and into absolute power whereby he can also do infinite things which he will not because otherwise he could not be said to be simply omnipotent 9 For as we hold not with them which think God is therefore called omnipotent because simplie whatsoeuer can bee saide or thought whether it be good or ill or if the same implie a contradiction he can doe the same so neither doe we subscribe to their opinion which hold that God is called and is omnipotent for no other cause but for that he can do whatsoeuer he wil that his power should so stretch no farther then his will but we beleeue he is therfore almighty in that besides he can do whatsoeuer he will he can also both will bring to passe innumerable things which he will neuer will nor bring to passe 10 For when the Scripture saith that God did whatsoeuer he would it plainely teacheth that he could haue done much more if he would And he which saieth hee will haue mercie on whome he will and he will harden whome he will he sheweth manifestly that he could aswell haue mercie on all or harden all as he can harden some and haue mercie on some and therefore that hee can haue mercie on more then he will haue merdie on and so that there are more things which he can doe then he will doe 11 For that which he can doe be can by his nature doe and therefore can not but be able to doe it vnlesse he could also so doe as that he should not be God But whatsoeuer without himselfe he willeth he freely willeth it and therefore could also not will it so as it is manifest that God can do more then he will seing he can will that he will not 12 Now we say God can doe all those thinges which are not repugnant either with his personall proprieties or with his essence and nature or which implie not a contradiction or lastly which are not of the defect or want of power if they be admitted 13 Thus although the father cannot bee the sonne nor the sonne the father neither also the father cā beget of himselfe another sonne or the sonne any other of himselfe yet therefore doeth nether the Sonne nor the Father cease to be omnipotent 14 For these are personall proprieties that the father should begett and not be begotten but the sonne be begotten not begett neither doth the essence of God beare it that there should be more fathers or more sonnes 15 Neither is any thing taken away from the power of god in that he cannot bring to passe but that he must be good iust wise seing he cā not be God vnlesse he be such as the scripturs describe him 16 So we take no power from God nor weakē it at all if we say God cannot sinne he cannot suffer he cannot bring to passe either not to be that which he is or that those things which are done should not haue bin done because these things are partly of the defect of power and partly they implie a contradiction And therefore are directly repugnant to the trueth of God and simply impossible 17 And so is it the propertie of God to be omnipotent as that it can belong to no created thing 18 For seing omnipotencie is nothing else but the verie immeasurable infinite essence and able to be communicated to no creature that it should agree to that thing to be omnipotēt vnto which it doeth not agree to be God in it owne essence 19 Neither can a thing finite bee capable of a thing infinite seing euerie thing is receiued according to the measure as they saye of the receiues 20 Also it is no lesse contrary to the nature of God that there should bee more almighties then that there should be more gods Whereupon christian religion will not allow that the three persons in God should be said to be three almighties 21 Wherefore although the man Christ Iesus is truely omnipotent because hee is not man onely but also God yet his humanitie cannot be or be said to be properly omnipotēt without impietie 22 For the humaine nature of Christ though it be vnited to the diuine nature into one person of the word and yet as it is not therefore made God so neither is it made properly omnipotēt but held still the owne weakenes whereby it was able to suffer for vs and to die 23 For neither could it haue suffred if as God so also it had beene made omnipotent seing to be able to suffer is impotencie and therefore God could not suffer because hee is omnipotent 24 And if the humaine nature of Christ was made omnipotent through the hypostaticall vnion in Christ why doe the Scriptures attribute it not to his humanitie but to his deitie that his bodie sawe no corruption or that this soule being restored to him he rose from the dead 25 Furthermore as a humaine bodie through the vnion with the minde neither is made an incorporeall substance indued with will and vnderstanding neither receiueth from it either immortalitie or the vertue of vnderstanding or willing so neither the humaine nature through the vnion with the diuine nature of the word is made an essence subsisting by it selfe most simple and most perfect or hath receiued from it to be properly omnipotent 26 Noreouer the argument whereby the father 's prooued against the Arrians Christ to bee true God by the omnipotencie attributed in the holie Scriptures to the sonne is quite ouerthrowne if we graunt that the omnipotencie maye bee communicated to any created thing 27 Lastlie concerning religion wee must not speake but agreeable to the Scriptures and to the analogie of faith But the holie Scriptures doe declare none but onely God to be omnipotent neither did the church euer professe any otherwise in her creeds 28 Whereas Christ saide after his resurrection alpower is giuen vnto me Authoritie is one thing and power another neither said he it is giuen to my humanitie but to me neither was this spoken in respect of his nature but of his office of a mediatour And that office was and is of his whole person according to both natures 29 Therefore as we beleeue by the holie ghost God alone to bee truely and properly omnipotent so also with the whole church do wee confeffe and preach 30 But we doubt not that the humaine nature of Christ is indued both with that power though finite which farrexceedeth the power of all created things aswel in heauen as earth and therefore wherein it may well properly be called the mightiest of all creatures also forthe hypostatical vnion with the truely omnipoten worde although properly in it selfe it be not such yet we graunt it may in some sort be said
can be found more excellent then Christs body both for the vnion with the word and for the wonderfull gifts created in the same and so also for the most perfect glorie and happines wherein he nowe liveth It must needes be that this bodie must exist in some certaine most happie place 31 Neither can it proceede but onely from trupiety and from our true reverence towardes Christ that we should beleeue that his body doth dwell not vnder the earth not in the earth not in the waters not in a peece of bread not in every leafe of a tree not in the ayre or in the celestiall speres but in a place as the most happie faire perfect so the highest of al others which we with Ambrose think the Apostle spake of when he said that he was caught vp 2. Cor. 12.2 4. into the third heaven and into paradise 32 To this the same scripture also teacheth the Catholike faith beleeueth and confesseth that the same Iesus Christ shall come out of that heauen in the cloudes Phil. 3.20 1. Thes 4.16 1. Thes 4.17 to iudge the quicke and the dead and that we beeing raised from the dead shall be caught vp into the aire to meete him in the cloudes and so shall be with him in that heauen for euer 33 And this heauen Ioh. 14.2 which is called the Fathers house and the heauenly citty and by many other names The scripture prooueth to be placed aboue all the visible and mooveable heauēs saying that Christ is ascended aboue all heauens Eph. 4.16 and that he is in heauen 34 For this heauen wherein he is in his body and wherein we shall be in our bodies and soules cannot be some vast and I knowe not what vncreated roome partly because nothing is vncreated but God partly because it is plainely to the Hebr. Heb. 11.10 said to be Gods workmāship 35 Moreover the chiefe and principall efficient cause of that moouing wherein his bodie was carried vp into heauen was the divine nature remaining in him according to that to the Phil. 2. God hath exalted him And he was taken vp of God into glory But a secondary efficient cause was the gift of agility which followed his glorious resurrection bestowed on the humane nature by the diety by which agility that flesh ascended vp not held and sustained by angels or by the cloudes as once Elias was in the fierie chariot but of it owne accord and without trouble or difficultie and therefore that motion was not a violent motion 36 Now this ascention of Christ our head was the cause and the example of our ascension which shal be into heaven For sith the head is ascended it must needes be that the members shall ascend and as his ascension was so ours shall bee For he shall chaunge our vile bodies to be like to his glorious body and we shall be caught vp into the cloudes to meete Christ in the ayre and so we shall be with the Lord for euer 37 If then ours shall be a true ascention and that we shall truely be lifted from the earth into heauen Therefore Christs body also did truely ascend from earth into heauen not imaginarily or putatively 38 And this doctrine of Christs true ascention into that highest heauen and his perpetuall abiding there is most profitable and full of cōsolation 39 For first it serueth to strengthen our faith about the certaine place where with the eyes and hands of our faith we may behold touch and take hold of the body of Christ Then to establish our hope namely that it shall be that before the resurrection of our bodies our soules beeing separated from our bodies they shall neither discend beneath the earth nor shall flote in the waters or the aire nor roule about with the spheres but shall be carried aboue all these heauens to that blessed and heauenly house of the Father into which Christ in his body is already entred that they may be euer with Christ Lastly to kindle in our hearts the loue and desire of a heauenly life and conversation as the Apostle saith If ye be risen vvith Christ seeke those things which are aboue set your affections on thinges vvhich are aboue vvhere Christ sitteth at the right hand of God 40 Of Christs sitting at the right hand of the father thus speaketh the Apostle And hath set him Christ raised from the dead and carried vp into heauen in the heauenly places farre aboue all principallities and power and might domination and euerie name that is named not onely in this vvorld but also in that which is to come and hath made all thinges subiect vnder his feete c. YVhatsoeuer is read otherwise in the holy scripture or confessed by the church in the Creedes concerning this sitting is agreeable vnto this 41 But we cā no where read that for this sitting at Gods right hand either Christ Iesus tooke any other body call it howesoeuer or that in his naturall body there was any chaūge made of the substance of it or of any of those naturall qualities and essentiall proprieties which it retained after his resurrection It is therefore manifest that in what body Christ rose and ascended into heauen namely a visible palpable and circumscribed body in the same he also sitteth at the Fathers right hand in the highest heauens and wheresoeuer he is or pleaseth to be he keepeth still to himselfe such a body 42 The Apostle also witnesseth and the church confesseth in the Creedes that Christ first died was buried raised from the dead and taken vp into heauen before he fare at the Fathers right hand Therefore either it is false that Christs humaine nature thē first receiued a gift for substance of his body to be really euery where or if it be true then it receiued it not by the hypostaticall vnion which was made in his very incarnation 43 Neither is this exception any thing that by the hypostaticall vnion this was giuen him in the first act as that if he would he might be present every where but by the sitting at Gods right hand it was giuen him in the second act that is that he was indeed present every where 44 For besides that the tearmes of this distinction are tearmes not taken from the fountaines of Israel but out of the puddles of sophisters Christ himselfe also refelleth this exception when speaking not of the first act but of the second that is of his actuall presence he said both a little before his death Where two or three shall be gathered together in my name there am I in the middest of them and after his resurrection bofore his ascension he said Beholde I am vvith you even to the ende of the world 45 By those sayings it evidently appeareth that either Christ spake not of the reall presēce of his body but onely of the presence of his diety and power of his spirit or that he is present to vs
like as no other but the verie same Christ rose from the dead so he rose in no other but in the verie same bodie in which he suffred died and was buried 14 For he could not be truely said to be raised and to rise from the dead except that which truely died the verie same quickened againe should rise againe 15 Now the bodie wherein Christ suffred died and was buried was a true humane bodie visible palpable circumscribed Therefore Christ after his resurrection had and retained no body but that which was circumscribed in a certaine place and wheresoeuer it was and is might and may be seene and handled 16 Add also that the Apostle carefully discoursing of the qualities with which our bodies being raised vp to eternall life shal be indued he saith not that they shal not be subiect either to the eye or to the touch or not bee circumscribed in a definite place but he rehearseth onely incorruption glorie and power as is the agilitie thereof and that they shall rise spirituall not that the corporall substance shal be chaunged into an incorporeall but that they shal be as the greeks call it immortall and shal be full of the holie spirite dwelling and working in them The Apostle therefore taught that these are qualities neuer to bee seperated from the bodies namely that they shal be circumscribed visible palpable Wherefore neither did Christs body after his resurrection put of these qualities 17 Neither is that exception any thing that Christ after he was risen came in to his disciples the dores beeing shut For it was not therefore either made vnvisible or vncircumscribed or vnpalpable seeing Christ being come in and seene of his disciples presently saide Feele or handle and see Luc. 24. for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me haue And therefore as the Fathers teach there was no chaunge made of Christs bodie no more then there was when he or Peter walked vpon the waters but by the omnipotency of his diety hauing power ouer all things the doores gaue place to the true and firme bodie of the sonne of God 18 Wherefore not without cause did the Fathers condemne not onely Marcion the Maniches and others which taught that Christ tooke not a true and firme humane bodie but a phantasticall one and did all things according to imagination and phantasie but also the Originists Iohn of Hierusalem and Euticius of Constantinople Hier. tom 12. ad PaÌ„mach Greg. in Iob. lib. 24 c. 29. Bishops and others which said that Christs bodie after his resurrectioÌ„ was made so spirituall that it was more thinne then ayre and therefore invisible and vnpalpable 19 Seeing then that in the supper no other bodie of Christ is giuen vs to be eaten but that which was broken for vs that is truely suffered and died it followeth that Christs 〈◊〉 body which we eate in the Supper is truely circumscribed visible and palpable and consequently seeing nothing is seene touched or perceiued in the Supper besides bread the same body cannot in it owne substance really be contained vnder the formes of bread and wine or lie hidden in the very bread and wine 20 Nowe we acknowledge the resurrection of Christ is both the cause and an example of our as well spirituall as corporall resurrection The cause of the spirituall because the Apostle saith to the Rom. 4. he rose againe for our iustification and an example because he saith Rom. 6. we are burâ—ed togither with him by baptisme into his death that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father so we also should vwalke in newenesse of life 21 But that he is the cause of our corporall resurrection we doubt not 1. Cor. 5. for that the Apostle saith If Christ be risen againe we shall also rise againe and for that he also saith Christ is the first fruits of them that rise and an example for that the same Apostle also writeth he shall chaunge our vile bodies Phil 3.21 that they shall be like his glorious bodie 22 Wherupon It also followeth either Christs bodie not to be invisible vnpalpable vncircumscribed and so not spirituall bodies but incorporall spirits 23 For where Christ saith Feele and see for a spirite hath not flesh and bones as yee see me haue hee did not onely conclude that himselfe was no spirite but he especially taught this that there is no flesh nor bones but may bee seene and felt 24 The Scripture teacheth and the church coÌ„fesseth that our Lord Iesus Christ being raised from the dead did shew vnto his disciples for fortie daies space by many arguments that he was truely risen and then euen in the beholding of the Apostles that he was lifted vpp from the earth ascended into heauen Therfore like as no other Christ rose againe then he which died so no other ascended into heauen nor in no other body then he in which that truely rose againe froÌ„ the dead the sonne of God truely humane visible palpable and circumscribed 25 Wherefore as the conuersation of the same Lord Iesus Christ wherein he conuersed amoÌ„g his Apostles after his refurrection for fortie daies space was not fantasticall but reall and true so also his ascension was not onely visible but also truely as the fathers say locall when the Apostles sawe him ascend from the earth vp into heruen 26 But such an ascension and mouing cannot agree to his divine nature therefore he ascended according to his humane nature 27 Yet by the way we denie not this but that Christ as God like as he is said to haue descended from heauen in respect that he abased himselfe taking vpon him the vile forme of a seruant and suffred in it so also it may rightly be said that he is exalted and ascended vp into heauen namely in respect that in the very same forme of a seruant when it was glorified euen the forme of God was after a sort glorified by his ascention and after it that is was made glorious in the wholle world 28 But it is apparent that as this consequence is not good Christ himselfe beeing God and man ascended into heauen in a locall and visible moouing Therefore he in the same sort ascended according to his dietie so neither is this good Christ God and man is with us to the ende of the world truely and in his owne essence therefore he is present on earth as wel in the substance of his body and soule as in the essence of his dietie 29 If also the Apostles sawe with their eies Christan his owne body by chaunge of place ascending from earth into heauen then the heauen into which he did ascend caÌ„not be an vbiquitary heauen but it must needes be farre distant from the earth 30 Moreover nature and all right requireth that for every thing some certeÌ„ place must be assigned as we see god hath done in all the things which he created Seing then no created thing