therefore yeelds the Scripture for such personall vnions sake also to the Deity a Namely in concreto as he presently shewes himselfe all that belongeth to the humanity and contrariwise b Note The fellowship of the propertieâ— p sse to and againe namely as well from the manhood to the Godhead as from the godly to the humane nature but not onely from the godly to the humane nature as at present the Vbiquitists do teach And is in truth so also For this must thou confesse the person meaning Christ suffereth dieth Now the person is true God Therefore it is truly spoken Gods Sonne suffered For although indeed that one part that I may so speake as the Diuine suffereth not yet suffereth the person which is God in the other part as in the Deity Euen as is vsually spoken the Kings Sonne is wounded when onely his leg is wounded Salomon is white when yet his soule onely is white Absolon is faire when yet his body is onely faire Peter is bald when yet his head onely is bald For whilest body and soule is one person so long the whole person is rightly and well applied in all whatsoeuer betideth the body and soule yea the smallest member thereof This is the manner of reasoning in the whole world not in Gods word alone And indeed it is the very truth Heere Doctor Luther vnderstood not Zwinglius right but that concernes vs not at all at this day Note Doctor Luther acknowledgeth that in this speech Christ is dead there is a trope Onely be will not haue it that the same trope shall be called an Alloeosis but it shall be called a Synecdoche which is no thing else then a meere word-strife For in very truth the Sonne of God was crucified for vs that is the person which is God For it it I say to wit the person was crucified according to the manhood So shal we appropriate according to the whole person what betideth to the other part of the person for this cause that both is one person So also doe the old fathers speake and all new Diuines and all languages and the whole Scripture But the cursed Alloeosis turnes this about and changeth and appropriateth to the parts which in the Scripture is applied to the whole person making Tropes of his owne to peruert the Scripture and to separate the person c. And presently after Whilest hee Tropes so gladly why remaines he not by the old Trope which the Scripture and all diuines hitherto haue vsed heerein namely Synecdoche as Christ is dead according to the manhood c. Also they exclaime on vs that wee mixe the two natures in one essence That is not true Wee doe not say that the Godhead is the humanity or the diuine nature is the humane nature which were to mingle the natures into one essence * Note But wee mingle the two differing natures in one onely person and say God is man and man is God But wee exclaime againe on them that they separate the person of Christ as if it were two persons For if the alloeosis shall hold as Zwinglius handles it then must Christ bee two persons one diuine and one humane a That was neuer the opinion of Zwinglius whilest he drawes the speech of the sufferings of Christ onely vpon the humane nature b That did not Zwinglius doe with any other meaning then as a little before Doctor Luther had also done and turneth all things from the Deitie c Not otherwise then as Doctor Luther also in the af regoâ—ng words For if the workes shall be seauered and parted then must also the person bee separated whilest that all workes or sufferings are not appropriated to the natures but to the persons For it is the person that doth all and suffers all one after this nature the other after that nature d That is the opinion of Zwinglius as all the learned vnderstand it well Therefore doe we e We also Tom 7 fol. 84. B. and 85. A. hold our Lord Christ so for God and man in one person non confundendo naturas nec diuidendo personam that wee mingle not the natures nor separate the person The third place where Doctor Luther handled the doctrine de communicatione Idiomatum or of the communion of the properties is in the exposition of the 14 Chap. of Iohn written Anno 1538. where amongst others he saith thus Christ speaketh both the word of God and man out of which is powerfully declared that he is both true man and also true God Also if a man speake of Christ The properties of both natures shall be ascribed to the person of Christ hee must teach significantly that he is one onely person and yet two seuerall natures namely godly and humane Also that the person in Christ must remaine vnseparated so that on both sides the properties of the humane and Diuine nature are to bee ascribed to the whole person and bee said of him the man Christ borne of the Virgin Mary is Almighty and doth all that we entreat of him Christ is Almighty according to the godly and not according to the humane nature but not in respect of the manhood but because of the Diuine nature not for that he was borne of his mother but because hee is the Son of God Euen so also on the contrary Christ Gods Sonne entreates the Father not according to the Diuine nature or essence it so being that he is alike almighty with the Father but therefore for that he is true man and the Sonne of Mary The natures shal be difference made of and yet the person be vnseparated So that the words be so drawne together and made to agree according to the vnion of the person that euermore the natures be made differing and yet the person remaine vnseparated c. Of the person of Christ may be said the properties of both natures Note Yet shall he well seene vnto what is to be vnderstood after the humane or what after the Diuine Whilest then God and man is beleeued to be one person we ought also so to speake of him as both natures require that some sayings concerne the manhood but some the Godhead that it bee marked what hee speaketh after the humane nature and also what according to the Diuine For if it bee not respected and truly made difference of then must needs follow so manie heresies as haue been in former times whereas some did say he was not true God some others he was not true man For they could not so resolue with themselues that they should distinctly separate the twofold speech according to the two natures For oftentimes hee spake in such a manner as the simplest man vpon earth should hardly doe As where hee saith I am come not to be serued but to serue there likeneth he himselfe wholly to a seruant vnder all men for all that hee is true God and
Messias is Gods onely euerlasting Sonne whom he sent into the world to take our sins vpon him to die for vs and to vanquish death for vs as Esay saith plainely 53. All wee like sheepe haue gone astray but the Lord hath laid vpon him the iniquitie of vs all and he gaue his life for one offering c. For this doe we sing and glory in with all ioy that Gods Sonne the true onely God with the father and holy Ghost is become a man and a worme for vs men God is dead God bore our sinnes vpon the Crosse in his owne person God hath redeemed vs by his owne blood For God and man is one person What the man heere doth suffereth and speaketh that doth suffereth and speaketh God and what God doth and speaketh that doth and speaketh the man which is the onely Sonne of God and Mary in one vnseparable person and two differing natures Out of all these places it is manifest that Doctor Luther did neuer teach in all his life any such communicationem idiomatum as is presently taught Namely that onely the Diuine properties should bee common to the humane nature and yet not all but onely some of them but the humane properties should not bee common to the Diuine nature Also whatsoeuer is said by vertue of such communion of the whole person of Christ the same may also bee said of either nature For example whilest it may be said by vertue of the communion of the properties the man Christ is almighty therefore may it also be said the manhood of Christ is almighty This doe we say did Doctor Luther neuer teach in all his life but this is alwaies the same that hee taught de communicatione idiomatum that the properties of both natures are common to the one alone and vnseparable person of Christ and that according to the same both Diuine and humane properties may bee said of the one alone and vnseparable person of Christ but yet with this prouiso that the Diuine properties shall bee vnderstood of him according to the Diuine and the humane properties according to the humane nature And it is not much materiall though some of his words sound so as if both the natures properties should be common to either nature As where hee saith Jn Chap 14. Iohn as before is mentioned All that the Scripture speaketh of Christ that speaketh it so that it takes hold on the whole person euen as were both God and man one essence and often so changeth the words that of either nature both is spoken for the personall vnions sake Which is called Communicationem idiomatum These words seeme well so to sound as if the properties of both natures should bee common not onely to the whole person of Christ but also to either nature in the same person But Doctor Luther in very truth had no such meaning But this is his meaning That of the person of Christ named after either nature both the natures properties may bee said That is that of Christ both the natures properties may be said be it either spoken of the Diuine or of the humane nature Euen as presently after he expounded himself where he saith that it may be said that the man Christ is the euerlasting Sonne of God by whom all creatures were made and is Lord of heauen and earth c. So also againe Christ the Sonne of God that is the person which is true God was conceiued and borne of the Virgin Mary suffered vnder Pontius Pilate was crucified and died c. Out of which his exposition it is apparant that he in the former speech where he said that of either nature both kinds may bee said did vse the names of the nature for the names of the person abstract for the concret as the Logicians say which thing also he very often vsed to doe as he confesseth himselfe where hee saith So speaketh the Scripture more acutely of Christ then we In the Postill vpon the Epist vpon Christs day fol 101. B. Edit Wit Anno 1540. and wreatheth the person so finely in the nature and parteth the nature againe that there are few who do truly vnderstand and I my selfe haue erred in this and the like speech that I haue appropriated to the nature that which appertaineth to the person and contrariwise Therefore when one will iudge truly of his doctrine then must he not pick out onely some single words out of his writings as hitherto some haue done but he must haue due regard vnto his whole exposition Then shall he finde that hee taught no otherwise then as is before mentioned of the communion of the properties namely That the properâ—ies of both natures are common to the alone person of Christ such person being termed by which nature they will but not that the properties of one nature should bee common to the other nature Therefore that is in no sort the doctrine of Doctor Luther which is vrged at this day vnder Doctor Luthers name Whereas it is alleaged the properties of both natures in Christ are not onely common to the alone and vnseparable person of Christ but also to the natures amongst themselues and such communion doth not passe to and fro from one nature to the other but onely from the Diuine nature vnto the humane and they doe not make all but onely some Diuine properties participating as namely the Omnipotencie Omniscience c. This doe we say is in no sort the doctrine of Doctor Luther but it is a very meere nouelty first of all inuented long after the death of Doctor Luther And it is besides that a very dangerous innouation For thereby is not onely the old heresie of Eutyches reuiued againe which raised the difference of both the natures in Christ and said the two natures of Christ were mixed in one through the personall coniunction and the Godhead also died for vs but also by such a nouelty is the Arians who denie the Godhead of Christ the passage throughly laid open to glide themselues into Dutchland Which wee haue often mentioned and will heereby once more giue warning of And wee entreate all those who beare a good heart towards God and their father-land that they would therefore considerately ponder the cause speak what will ensue vpon this contention Doct. Martin Luther Tom. 7. Ien. fol. 79. 80. 81. The onely ground whereby wee are able to maintaine the true Godhead of Christ against the Arians and hitherto haue maintained it is this That Christ in the holy Scripture is not only called God which also indeed sometimes is attributed to the creatures as to the Angels a Iob 1.6 and to the Magistrates b Psal 82.7 but that vnto him also are ascribed Diuine properties works and honours as these are almighty all-knowing to bee euery where present c. when now this ground shall be taken from vs and it be said that to a nature which is not God may also be ascribed
and what may be said of a man whilest he is both God and man But yet must such a speech be vnderstood with difference as namely in this maner When any diuine thing is spoken of him then must it be vnderstood of the diuine nature But when as any humane thing is spoken of him then must it be vnderstood of the the humane nature For example It may bee said indeed and in truth of Christ that hee is from euerlasting and also that he was borne at the appointed time but not both according to both natures but the former after the diuine the other according to the humane nature And it is of small consequence with what name the person of Christ is named For example Whether he be called God or man the Sonne of God or of man c. then is it all to one effect For it is alwaies vnderstood of the person which is together God and man Therefore as it may well and truly be said Christ is from euerlasting euen so may it also be well and truly said the Sonne of man is from euerlasting Also as it may well and truly bee said Christ was borne of the Virgin Mary and died for vs vpon the Crosse euen so may it also be well and truly said the Son of God was borne of the Virgin Mary and died for vs vpon the Crosse This was the doctrine of Doctor Luther of the fellowship of the properties of both the natures in Christ That namely as is said the properties of both natures in Christ are common to the alone vnseparable person of Christ but not to the natures themselues And that this fellowship is mutuall that is that they are as well transferred from the humane nature to the diuine as from the diuine to the humane For example that it may as well be said the Sonne of God died for vs as it may bee said the man Christ is Almighty And as in deed and truth the Son of God died for vs though hee did not die according to the Godhead euen so in deed and in truth is the Sonne of man Almighty though hee bee not almighty according to the manhood Against this our accusers doe teach Vbiquities doctrine of the fellowship of the Properties that the properties of both the natures in Christ are not common to the alone and vnseparable person of Christ but also to the natures themselues and that for all that such a fellowship is not mutuall that is that such a fellowship is not transferred as well from the manhood to the Godhead as from the Godhead to the humane but that onely some properties of the Godhead are common to the manhood nature Therefore a man may well say the manhood of Christ is almighty all-knowing euery where present c. whilest it is vnited to the almighty all knowing and euery where present Godhead personally but on the contrary it may not be said the Godhead of Christ is created visible palpable and diable whilest it is vnited to the created visible palpable and to the deiected diable manhood personally This is at this day the doctrine of the Vbiquitists And they say that Doctor Luther of happie memory did euen so beleeue and teach But setting aside the vbiquity of the body of Christ they informe the Reader amisse And we are well assured that Doctor Luther did neuer teach so in all his life of the fellowship of the properties as the Vbiquitists do teach therof namely that such fellowship is performed in the natures themselues And that the same for all that is not transferred to and fro but onely from the Godly to the humane nature This did Doctor Luuher as is said neuer teach in all his life But so often as he spake of the fellowship of the properties of both the natures in Christ then did he say That such a fellowship is performed in the person of Christ without hurt to the difference of natures and that the same passeth to and fro that is that all humane properties may be spoken of the Sonne of God as also all diuine properties of the Son of man This hath beene indeed and at all times the doctrine of Doctor Luther of the fellowship of the properties of both natures in Christ The which that the peace-louing Reader may be throughly informed of we will set downe word by word in this place all the passages as they befell from yeere to yeere one after another wherein Doctor Luther did teach of the fellowship of the properties of both the natures in Christ and that as wel out of his strife writings as out of his doctrinall writings Extract out of Doctor Martin Luthers writings of the fellowship of the properties of both natures in Christ AMongst which places the first is in the Church Postill which Doctor Luther did write Anno 1521. and calleth it his best booke Tom. 2 Ien. fol. 381 B. In the same place in the exposition of the Epistle vpon Christs daie he saith thus That wee now returne againe to Christ it is to bee beleeued constantly that Christ is true God and true man And sometimes the Scripture speaketh and himselfe after the Diuine nature and sometimes after the humane nature As where he saith Ioh. 8. Before Abraham was I am That was spoken of the Godhead But where he saith Mat. 20. to Iames and Iohn to sit at my right hand and at my left hand is not mine to giue Note The manhood of Christ is not almighty Note The manhood of Christ is not all-knowing That was spoken of the humanity euen as he could not helpe himselfe vpon the Crosse Howsoeuer some will heere so shew their cunnings with their darke expositions that they ioyne with heretiks Also is this spoken of the man Christ where hee saith Mark 13. Of that day and houre knoweth no man no not the Angels which are in heauen neither the Son himselfe saue the Father The Glosse is not heere needfull Note They that say that Christ is also almighty according to the manhood they mingle the two natures one with the other the Son knoweth not that is hee will not know it What auaileth such a Glosse The manhood of Christ hath euen like vnto another holy naturall man not alwaies thought all things spoken willed as some make of him an almighty man mingling the two natures and their operations one in the other ignorantly c. The second place is in the great Confession which he writ Anno 1528. Tom. 3. Ien. fol. 455 B. where he saith thus All words workes sufferings and whatsoeuer Christ doth that doth worketh speaketh and suffereth the true Sonne of God And it is truly spoken the Sonne of God died for vs c. If now heere the shee weather maker womens wit the allaeosis grandmother shall say indeed the Diety can neither suffer nor die th u shalt answere that is true But for all that whilest the Diety and humanity in Christ is one person
true God For the Angels worship not bare flesh or humane nature Therfore there must be both God and man together in this person and when Christ is named then is named an vnseuered person who is both God and man That whosoeuer sâ—â—th Christ heareth or layeth hold on him with the faith of the heart he layeth hold certainly not onely on the man but on the true God that God be not made to sit aboue in heauen loytering among the Angels but heere below in the Crib and lying in the mothers lappe and in some where the person is found For what serues it whereas it is said that the Sonne of God and not a bare man died for vs. there is certainly found the godly Maiesty This serues now to this end as hath been often said that we may resist the diuell and vanquish him in the battell of death and other extremities when he terrifieth vs with sinne and hell For if hee could perswade mee that I should behold Christ as a bare man crucified and dead for me then were I vtterly lost But and if I repose my whole treasure hereon that Christ both true God and man died for me c. that waieth vp and driueth away all sinne death hell and all woe and sorrow of heart For when I know this that hee who is true God suffered for mee and died and againe the same true man risen from the dead ascended into heauen c. Then can I assuredly conclude that my sin and death is by him destroyed and ouercome and therefore now there remaines no anger with God nor displeasure against mee whilest I both heare and see in this person nothing else then meere tokens of mercy Behold so learne to vnderstand this article that the person of Christ be kept whole and that the worke of both natures be infolded together though the natures be made distinguished For according to Diuine nature was hee not borne of man neither tooke hee any thing from the Virgin and it is true that God is the Creator but the man a creature or thing formed But they are vnited into one person and now God and man is called one Christ that Mary hath borne a Sonne and the Iewes crucified such a person which is both God and else if hee were bare man as other holy men hee were not of ability with all his holinesse blood and death to free vs of one sin or to quench one drop of hell fier The fourth place where Doctor Luther entreates about the doctrine of the Communion of the properties Tom 7 Jen. fol. 249. is in the booke of the Councels and Churches written Anno 1539. where hee saith The errour of Nestorius was not that he held Christ for a bare man neither that he made two persons of him but confessed two natures God and man in one person but he would not yeeld vnto the communicationem Idiomatum which I cannot vtter in Dutch word Idioma is as much as what concernes one nature or the properties thereof As dying suffering weeping speaking laughing eating drinking sleeping sorrowing to bee borne to haue a mother to sucke the brests going standing working sitting lying Properties of the humane nature and whatsoeuer else are called Idiomata humanae naturae that is properties which appertaine to a naturall man which he either can do or not or must doe For Idioma Properties of the Diuine nature in Greeke is proprium in Latine Let vs therefore call it propertie Againe Idioma Deitatis is properties of the Diuine nature that it dieth not is almighty infinite vnborne eateth not drinketh not sleepeth not standeth not goeth not sorrowes not weepeth not And what shall a man say much It is an vnmeasurable contrary thing God to be a man therefore can the Idiomata of both natures not agree in one This is the opinion of Nestorius When I now should preach thus Iesus a Carpenter of Nazareth for so doe the Euangelists call him the Sonne of a Carpenter goeth there in the street and fetcheth his mother a pot of water and a penniworth of bread that so he may eate and drinke with his mother and the same Iesus the Carpenter is the right true God in one person herein yeelds Nestorius vnto me and saith it is true But when I say thus there goeth God in the street and fetcheth water and bread to eate and drinke with his mother this speech will not Nestorius yeeld vnto but saith to fetch water to buy bread to haue a mother to eate and to drinke with her those are Idiomata properties of the humane nature and not of the Diuine Euen so when I say Iesus the Carpenter was crucified by the Iewes and the same Iesus is the true God this yeelds Nestorius vnto me that it is true But if I say God was crucified by the Iewes then saith he no. For to endure the Crosse and die is not the Diuine but the humane natures Idioma or propertie When now common Christians shall heare this then cannot they thinke otherwise then that hee esteemes Christ to bee a meere man seperates the person which yet hee doth not intend to doe but onely that the words sound as if he did it By which may be seene that hee was a very vaine and ignorant man For it being that hee yeeldeth that God man ioyned in one person is vnited As God and man is vnited into one person eâ—en so the properties of the natures then can be in no sort gainsay that the Idiomata of the natures should not also be vnited Else what were this God and man in one person vnited And his follie is euen with that against which wee teach in the Schooles Quâ— concedit antecedens bonae consequentiae non potest negare consâ—qâ—ensâ— which is as much as this is one true then must the other be also true is the other not true then is the first also not true Whosoeuer yeelds to this that Margaret is a married wife hee cannot denie that her child if shee bee honest is legitimate When one teacheth this in the Schooles no man thinks that there should be any such blockish people But demand of the Magistrates and Lawyers thereof if they haue not many the like oftentimes before them who acknowledge one thing and yet will not yeeld to that that followes vpon it But it might be alleaged that Nestorius did craftily confesse that Christ was God and one person No hee was not so skilfull for all his stoutnesse but hee meant it earnestly For in a Sermon saith the Tripartite history did he cry no â—ouing Iew thou hast no cause to boast thou couldest not crucifie God There will hee say Christ is indeed God but God is not crucified And in the Councell before Bishop Cyrill hee said that many acknowledge Christ to be God but I will neuer say that God is bitris or trinitris which is as much as to say Iesus indeed is God which is so much talked