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
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
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
that they may auoide condemnation XI Errors Therefore wee condemne those which reiect the law out of the church as vnprofitable and not pertaining to christians and againe those which teach that a man may either wholie or in part bee iustified by the lawe fith it was rather giuen Io. 1.29 to shutt vp all men vnder sinne and to leade them to Christ who alone taketh away the sinnes of the world And this is brieflie our confession of the law deliuered from god by Moses and declared by the Prophets vvhich prepareth disposeth and bringeth men vnto Christ Rom. 10.4 and therefore Christ is ende thereof as the Apostle writeth CHAP. XI Of Christ the redeemer I. A summe of the faith of the person and office of Christ the redeemer WHen therefore the fullnesse of time was come Gal. 4.4 wherein the promise of redemption made vnto the first man was to be accomplished by the second God the euerlasting father sent his onely begotten sonne and eternal and therefore true God of the same nature vvith the father made of a vvoman alone and vvithout the seede of a man and therefore true man but vvithout sinne and so true Christ made subiect to the lavve and therefore circumcised that he in most perfect obedience might fulfill that lavv in the name of vs all made obedient to his father euen vnto death namely for vs for he being vvithout sinne deserued not to die that he might redeeme those which vvere vnder the law and all the elect euen by his obedience by his death and bloodshedding that is by a sacrifice of exceeding vertue for it vvas the blood of God and a most effectuall ransome that he might I saie redeeme vs from sinne to the old image of god to perfect righteousnesse yea from death to eternal life and from the kingdome of Satan to the kingdome of God and that we might receiue adoption of children and so in the ende bee taken into full and perfect possession of the heauenlie inheritance as sonnes and lavvfull heires And lastlie that he might gather together all thinges in heauen and in earth vnder one head and ioyne them to himselfe Eph. 1.10 for the glorie of God the father II. Christ the redeemer is true God and true man We beleeue therefore Iesus Christ to be the onely begotten sonne of God Ioh. 1.14 Mich. 5.2 Phil. 2.6 1. Ioh. 5.20 Mat. 1.1 and so the sonne in nature consubstantial and coeternall to the father and lastlie true God almightie also true man of the true seed of Abraham and Dauid conceiued vvithout the help of a man Heb. 4.15 Mat. 26.35 but onlie by vertue of the holie ghost in the vvombe of the virgine and vvithout sinne and borne of her indued vvith a true soule and a humaine minde and made like vnto vs in all thinges sinne onelie excepted so that he is true God of the substance of the father Ath. in sym begotten before all vvorldes and true man of the substance of his mother borne in the vvorld III. Onely the Sonne to be both God and man and onely Christ But so vve beleeue that the sonne of God is both true God and true man and therefore the true Christ and him alone vve confesse to bee such sith vve read that neither the father neither the holie Chost but onelie the vvorde it selfe vvas made flesh Ioh. 1.14 and the Apostle saieth that the sonne onelie vvas made of a vvoman and that he onelie suffred Gal. 4.4 although to the creation of the nature vvhich the sonne tooke vppon him not onely the Sonne but the Father also and the holy ghost vvere all concurrent IV. That the sonne vvas made man without anie change of himselfe but onely assuming to himselfe humaine nature And vvee beleeue that the sonne of God vvas made man vvithout making any confusion of the diuine and humaine natures vvithout his conuersion into flesh or anie chaunge in the flesh onely by assuming of the humaine nature into the vnitie of that person and as Athanasius speaketh In sym not by conuersion of the godhead into flesh but by taking of the manhood into God so that that vvhich he vvas he did by no meanes leese or let goe but that vvhich he vvas not he tooke vppon him as the Apostle saith Ieb 2.16 the sonne tooke on him the seede of Abraham and as he teacheth that as the sonne taking vppon him vvas not chaunged into the thing taken for God cannot be chaunged at all but remained the same that he vvas trulie distinct from the thing assumed and taken So that seede taken on him vvas not turned into the thing that tooke it but was vnited with the diuine nature into the vnitie onely of the same person according to that saying The word was made flesh The flesh therefore remained flesh and was not changed into the word V. Nether one nature tooke on it another nature nor one person another person but the person of the sonne of God tooke on him mans nature Whence also wee vnderstand that neither the diuine nature common to the three persons nay indeed one and the self same nature of them all did take on it humaine nature nor one person tooke on it another person but onelie another nature For neither did the sonne of God take on him any sonne of Abraham but the seed of Abrahā that is humaine nature spreading from Abraham therefore wee acknowledge not two persons in Christ but onely the same alone by which all thinges were made and which was so perfect before it tooke on it the seede of Abraham that by the same taking it is not made anie other or anie perfecter person or yet indeed any whitt vnperfect VI. The humaine nature was not taken to make a nevv person in Christ or to make perfect the former but onelie to be coupled and vnited to his eternall and most perfect person For albeeit we acknowledge two natures in Christ the diuine and humaine yet we doe not admit that the humaine was therefore assumed that either a new person compounded of that this as of the parts should be made in Christ or that the former and the eternall person should bee made the perfecter by the coupling of a newe nature but onelie that mans nature beeing taken into vnitie of that most perfect and euerlasting person the sonne of God remaining the same that he was might be made that he was not and might haue what to offer vnto his father for vs. And therefore we doe not simplie allow it if one saye so the person of Christ is compounded of the diuine and humaine nature as the person of a man consisteth of a soule and a bodie But we allow the vsuall phrase in the church that Christ clothed himselfe or was clothed with our flesh Whereupon Augustine saith Christ came downe from heaven as a naked man comes downe a hill but he went vp againe clothed with our flesh as vvith
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
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
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
therefore cannot really be communicated to the other nature as to be impassible eternall immeasurable Some are proper to the humaine nature and therefore cannot altogether indeede be communicated to the other nature as to be made to be finite and passible And other some propper to the wholle person consisting of both natures and therefore common to both natures together as to be a mediatour a redeemer a Sauiour 9 To this third kind pertaine those actions which the greeke Fathers called the actions of God maÌ„ or actions divine and humaine because in the workes of our redemption each forme worketh not the property of the other but of it selfe yet with the communion of the other the worde working that which belongeth to the word the flesh performing that which belongeth to the flesh 10 Of these three kinds of Atributes we find in our selues an example not vnlike For in a man some thinges are proper onely to the soule as to be immortall to vnderstand to wil soÌ„e thinges to the body only as to be mortall palpable heauy Some things common to them both as be such works to the performaÌ„ce whereof each part worketh that which is proper to it with communion of the other as to write to speake to runne and to doe whatsoeuer is done by the ministery of the body yet not without the vertue and guidance of the soule 11 Nowe of this which hath beene saide of the diuers Subiects Praedicats there followeth a diuersitie also of PraedicatioÌ„ Euery Praedication therefore of Christ is either proper and simple or els improper and figuratiue 12 The proper and simple PrÄ™dication falleth two waies one is when those thinges which are proper to one nature they are predicated or said of the person of Christ beeing expressed by a name either denominated of the same nature or proper to the person as this our God or Christ is omnipotent and euery vvhere present also this man or Christ suffered and died The other is when such things as are proper to the wholle person they are said also of the wholle person signified by a name that containeth both the natures such as these are that belong to the office of a mediatour and the honour of an head as Christ Imanuell God incarnate redeemed vs sanctified vs saued vs is a King to be vvorshipped which are said therefore to be proper to the person because they can be seuerally applied to neither of the natures Nowe all such be proper and simple propositions because in all which are of the same kinde the Praedicates be coupled with the Subiects in all those thinges which are of the verie same kinde 13 The improper and figuratiue praedication is likewise twofold one wheÌ„ as these things which are proper to the wholle person either belonging to the office of a mediatour or to the honour of an head the same are saide of on of the natures signified either by an abstractiue or a concretiue name As the flesh quickeneth the blood washeth from sinne God redeemed the Church the Mediatour of god and men Man c. The other when that which is proper to one nature is said of the other nature signified by a name which is concretiue and which be tokeneth the person as God suffered and died man when he was on earth was also at the same time in heauen 14 For in thâ—se improper propositions of the latter sort the proprieties of diuerse kindes are coupled as wordes concretiue and therfore god is vnproperly said to suffer in as much as the name God in it owne propper signification doth betoken the divine essence which cannot suffer but in respect of the person being meant which is also man it is a true though an improper propositioÌ„ therefore these things are said of the wholle person by a Synechdoche whereas indeede they agree not to the same but onelie in respect of one nature 15 This latter forme of an improper speech we call the coÌ„munity of proprieties as the greeks doe which Theodoret expounding calleth the communitie of names And Damascene the troope of retribution 16 For with them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was a concretiue worde signifying the proprietie of some nature And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was when as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or proprieties of one nature were mutually and reciprocally spoken of the concrete name of the other nature which name did signifie the person so that it is meere folly to thinke that the Fathers when they spake of the comnication of the Idiomes that they meant to speake of any reall powering or communication of the essentiall proprieties of one nature into the other seing they write plainely the vnitie maketh the names common but neuer maketh the things common 17 For if our talke be of the natures themselus Theod. diâ— 3. p. 67. B. which are in Christ Theodoret with other fathers teacheth vs that wee must so speake as we do not saye that those which are proper to the one nature are in very deed common to the other but that wee giue to either of them alone that which belongeth to it Euen as that which belongeth to the soule wee giue it not to the body and contrary wise But if we speak of the person we must so frame our speach that we may declare those things which are proper to each nature to bee truely and indeed common to the whole person euen as also we giue to the whole man really and in trueth aswell those things which belong to the soule as to the bodie Now his very wordes after his bringing in of the similitude of the soule and the body the whole man follow thus So we must speake of Christ And when we speake of the natures in Christ wee must geue to each of them those things which do befitt each we must know what things are proper to the diuinitie what to the humanitie but whenas we speake of the person we must make those things which are proper to the nature common and must fitt these verie same to our Sauiour Christ and we must call him both God and man both the sonne of God and the sonne of man both the sonne of Dauid and the Lord of Dauid both the seede of Abraham and the creatour of Abraham and so of all the rest The same doctrine he also confirmeth out of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium and out of other fathers in many places in his dialogues 18 Damascene also to expound the same matter to wit how the same thinges which belong to one nature should be communicated to the other namely in person writeth thus The word doth approprsate vnto it selfe those things which belong to man For those thinges which pertaine to his holy flesh be his and he doth by a manner of mutuall praedication impart those things which are proper to himselfe vnto the flesh by reason of the being of the partes mutually one within the other and their
which being also in Christ doth so really couple vs with him that we are one body with him and amongst our selues yea al of vs one new man in the same head Christ for in those two respects namely one of the spirit by whome the other of the head Eph. 2.14 to whome wee are ioyned Paule saide all the faithfull vvere one nevve man XVIII By the vnion vvith Christ the participation of the benefits of his death and resurrection is conueied vnto vs. Now of this communion with christ there followeth and dependeth the participation of his benefites and of saluation gotten and remaining for vs in his flesh and blood For as the branches can draw no nourishment from the vine nor the members from the head nor the liuely stones from the foundation vnlesse they be really ioyned with their foundation with their head with the tree with the vine abide in them so neither can we from Christ our head our foundation our tree our vine vnlesse wee bee truely grafted into him by the holy ghost and do abide in him beeing made flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone Wherfore they doe vs very great iniurie that say we therefore denie the true participation of his flesh and blood and that we affirme a participation only of his gifts and benefits because wee will not admit which wee cannot admit that the true bodie of Christ doth passe reallie through our mouth into our bodies As though it were not a true and an essentiall communion which is made by the holy ghost and by faith sith nothing can knitt more strictlie diuerse substances and natures into one then the holy ghost As we see in the incarnation of the sonne of God and in the creation of man being compounded of the soule and the bodie Surelye if that communion which is made by the onely spirit and by faith with the flesh and bloode of Christ were not able to saue vnlesse he should also passe through the mouth into our bodies Christ had prouided but slenderly for his church Therefore in receiuing of the gospell and in the profession of Baptisme he would haue the same communion to be made 1. Ioh. 1.3 1. Co. 12.13 as Iohn witnesseth of the first and the Apostle Paule of the second This therfore is our confession of the true communion with Christ in generall and therefore of the dispensation of saluation and life which is in Christ XIX Errors Wherefore we disallow their error which teach that remission of sinnes and saluation is communicated to men Opus operatum by the vvorke wrought as they call it without faith and without the true vniting with Christ Yea we condemne their blasphemie who labour to proue it may be done by works not commaunded of god but deuised by men and full of superstition idolatry and theirs also which setting nought by the ministerie of the worde doe teach that saluation is communicated aswell without as with the hearing of the word and receiuing of the Sacraments and much more those which affirme that al infants in their mothers wōbes aswell of faithfull parents as of infidells are made partakers of the benefite of Christ CHAP. XIII Of the gospell and of the abrogation of the lawe by the gospell SEing first the gospell and then the Sacraments Baptisme and the Lords Supper are the outward instrumentes whereby our redeemer the Lord Iesus Christ vseth to offer and bestowe the grace of redemption remission of sinnes vppon the worlde and to communicate himselfe vnto vs his elect and to incorporate vs likewise into himselfe so to make vs indeed partakers of that saluation and life which we haue in him Therefore wee haue purposed briefly and plainely to declare vnto Gods church what our faith is concerning the same I. The gospell what it is Concerning the gospell therefore according to the signification receiued and vsed in the church we beleeue that it is nothing else but the heauenly doctrine concerning Christ preached by Christ himselfe and the Apostles and contained in the bookes of the newe Testament bringing the best and most gladsome tidings to the world namely that mankinde is redeemed by the death of Iesus Christ the onely begotten sonne of God so that there is prepared for al men Mat. 3.2 if they repent beleeue in Iesus Christ a free remission of al their sinns saluation and eternall life Wherefore it is fitlie called of the Apostle Eph. 1.13 The Gospell of our saluation II. The gospell was promised by the Prophets but published by the Apostles For albeit that this misterie euen from the first beginning of the world was reuealed vnto the fathers and that the Prophetes spake of the same yet that which they preached was rather Euangelical promises and those reserued among the Iewes then the gospell it selfe which was to be published to all nations sith they foretold of a thing which was to come but did not declare the thing present or that was past Rom. 1.2 1. Pet. 1.10 as the Apostle teacheth to the Romaines and Peter in his first epistle III. Aswell the fathers were saued by faith which they had in the promises concerning Christ the redeemer as wee which beleeue in the gospell Meane while we doubt not but aswell the fathers Rom. 4.3 who beleeued in those Euangelicall promises of Christ which was to come and should bruise the serpents head were saued Heb. 1.10 as we also by our faith in the gospell telling vs that Christ is come and that he hath redeemed the world are saued as the Apostle both in other places and in the epistle to the Romaines doth largely teach vs concerning Abraham to the Hebrues concerning all the other so that it is a foule blasphemy to say that only earthly matters were promised to the fathers and that they receiued onely such and not heauēlie as remission of sinnes and eternall life For looke what the gospell is vnto vs properly receiued the same were the Euangelicall promises to them Rom. 1.16 namely the power of God to saluation vnto euerie beleeuer IV. The doctrine of the gospell touching the substance is most auncient and eternall Whereby wee knowe that the doctrine of the gospell touching the substance thereof is not new but most auncient and preached vnto the Fathers euen from the worlds creation so as Iohn not vnfitly called the gospell Apo. 14.6 an euerlasting gospell V. The parts of the gospell how many and what Furthermore there ar three especial points in the gospell which wee are called vppon to performe Repentance towardes God Faith in our Lord Iesus Christ Act. 20.21 Mar. 1.4 Mat. 28.10 and a care to obserue whatsoeuer Iesus Christ hath willed and commaunded VI. A declaration of the former opinion The Gospell therefore which setteth out vnto vs Christ with the whole fauour and mercy of God with the purging forgiuenes of sinnes and with the whole saluation and eternall life
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
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
God Of the first the Apostle Saint Paule saieth VVee are predestinated into the adoption of the sonnes of God and therefore to a heauenlie inheritance of the other that it was done for the praise of the glory of his grace 6 The saluation therefore of the elect in Iesus Christ is certaine and necessarie the foundation whereof is the ternall free and vnchaungable purpose of the will of God 7 Who so haue beene chosen from the beginning in Christ vnto life euerlasting and to the meanes thereunto all they and onely they in the time appointed of the father ver 7 which is called the fulnesse of time were in verie deede through Christ and in Christ redeemed from their sinnes and so from the euill which followeth sinnes the Apostle saying in Iesus Christ vvee haue redemption euen remission of sinnes 8 Neither were we redeemed Tit. 3. v. 5 ver 7. according to the merits works of righteousnes which we haue done but according to the mercies of God and according to the riches of his grace by the blood of Christ Iesus both which are manifestly confirmed by the Apostle 9 And albeit the eternall father redeemed saued vs by his sonne by whome he also created vs yet the â—onne is he which by an especiall respect the church of God vseth to call the redeemer of mankinde and our Sauiour 10 For the Sonne alone Lev. 25. ver 48.49 was and is God and man and he alone had the right of proprietie as they call it or of kindred to redeeme vs hee alone shedd his blood whereby as by a ransome we were redeemed Lastlie he it is alone in whose person our redemption is made perfect and accomplished 11 By the name of this ransome which wee are said to haue in Christ â— Cor. 1. v. 30 wee meane that full and accomplished redemption in as much as it containeth not onely remission of sinnes in this life but also in the life to come after this a perfect deliuerance from all ill and from the bondage of all corruption so that there is no ransome which we haue not in Christ our most perfect redeemer who as he is made vnto vs by God our wisedome righteousnes sanctification so also our redemption Of the resurrection of Christ Iesus from the dead his ascension into heauen and sitting at Gods right hand out of the first of Paule to the Ephesians yeare 1581. 1 GOd did effectually shewe the greatnes of his power in Christ Eph. 1. â—â— by raising him from the dead therefore onely God by his infinite power is the efficient cause of the resurrection of Christ and all the dead 2 Yea but Christ also by his power raised him selfe from death as he said destroy this temple Ioh. 2.19 and in three dayes I will build it vp but hee spake of the temple of his bodie and that Ioh. 10.17 I lay downe my life that I may take it againe Christ therefore is no lesse God then the father neither is hee God of lesser might 3 But one and the same cannot be truely the raiser and the raised from the dead vnlesse he consist of diuers natures of the diuine according to which he doth raise and the humane according to which he is raised Therefore the same Christ as he is true God coessentiall with the father so hee is true man coessentiall with his mother and his brethren 4 Neither can any bee truely said to be raised and to rise from the dead vnlesse the same bee truely said to be dead and to haue died But death consisteth in a true separation of the soule froÌ„ the bodie whereby the body which dieth may presently bee rightly called a dead carkasse Christ then if he truely rose from the dead it can by no meanes be denied but that he also truely died his soule being truely separated from his bodie 5 If then sith he truely died neither his soule for that time of his death was in his bodie neither sith he was truely buried his bodie while it honge vppon the crosse was in the graue or while it lay in the graue hong vppon the crosse neither sith God truely raised him from the dead either his soule recalled his body or his body recalled himselfe from death to life therefore the humane nature in Christ was neither omnipotent nor euery where present in it owne substance 6 For as this consequence is not good Christ Iesus himselfe was dead and buried and rose againe from the dead therefore he was dead and buried and rose againe according to both his natures So neither is this behold I am vvith you euen to the ende of the vvorlde therefore not onely in his deitie but also in the substance of his humanitie hee is really present with vs on the earth 7 But as this consequence is good Christ being God suffered therefore he suffered not according to his deitie but according to his humanitie so is this other Christ Iesus being man is euerie where and simply omnipotent therefore he is euery where and omnipotent not according to his humanitie but according to his deitie seing the diuine nature is no lesse vnited to the humane then the humane is to the diuine in the same person of Christ Iesus 8 If God himselfe and so the diuine nature in Christ raised his body from the dead not by the same bodie but by it selfe namely by the diuine nature then it is false that the diuine nature in Christ did all things and doeth not onely in and with but also by the humane nature 9 For the soule of Christ Iesus doth not work all thinges by the bodie as neither doe our mindes vnderstand or will thinges by the bodies and that for this cause that as the philosophers also taught our minde dependeth not on the bodie Much lesse then doth the deitie of Christ worke all thinges by the flesh which it tooke 10 For doth the deitie vnderstand by the humane vnderstanding or doeth it will by the humane will or doth it keepe or sustaien the humane nature in the person of the word by the verie same humane nature or doth it beare all thinges by the humane flesh or rather by the word of it owne vertue Lastlie if the forme of God doe nothing but by the forme of a seruant how can that saying of Leo be true each fo rme doth the propertie of it selfe vvith communion of the other 11 Like as therefore the forme of God is one and the forme of a seruant another so the actions and proprieties of the one and of the other be diuers though manie times both the one the other haue one and the same worke and operacion 12 Wherefore this is no coÌ„sequence to whomsoeuer Christ commeth with the father according to the forme of God to him he also commeth and abideth in him in his owne substaÌ„ce according to the forme of a seruant much lesse that he is so euery where 13 Further