Eutyches affirmed that Christ had but one nature that is to say diuine or of God like as hee was but one person Hee was about the yeere 450 as some think His error was condemned in the Ephesine councell Nestorius deemed our sauior to be God Hee was as some suppose about the yeere 419. so we also say and affirme that Christ consisteth of two natures of which one is the Godhead and the other is the manhood By the way I will speake this thing that we are constreined to vse new speeches that we may auoid new errors or els old ones new polished and trimmed with which manie men at this daie do intangle snare themselues for as in proper place heerafter we will shew there haue risen sprong vp within our remembrance certeine men who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches partlie of Nestorius haue in stead of the word Godhead brought in diuinitie and therfore we are inforced to distinguish Godhead from diuinitie And verilie Paule spake not rashlie where hee saith that the fulnes of the godhead dwelleth in Christ where he vseth also Colloss 2.9 not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is diuinitie but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is deitie or Godhead The Gretians do in their termes more fitlie expresse religion than the Latinists for the Gretians I know not by what meane do much better and more effectuallie expresse these things than the Latins doo as also in this argument or matter I would more gladlie willingly for plainnesse sake say and vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is hominitas if it be lawfull to speake so in Latine or as you would say mans nature or the verie state and condition of mans nature rather than humanitie or manhood Then we perceiue vnderstand that in Christes person there are two substances to wit the Godhead and the manhood Athanasius as we say So speaketh Athanasius in that famous confession of his saieng that he was consubstantiall that is of the selfe same substance with the father and as he himselfe expoundeth it God of the substance of the father and man of the substance of his mother that is of the same substance that we are Afterwards the church vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synodus Chalcedonensis that is nature We confesse saith the Chalcedon synod that the sonne consisteth of two natures Neither in deed was the terme nature vnaduisedlie vsed or rashlie taken vp albeit it if we would narrowlie consider the propertie of the word the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is nature dooth not agree to the diuinitie for it is deriued or commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is The reasons moouing the fathers to vse the word Nature to be borne or sprong vp which agreeth well to a thing created but not to God himselfe the creator Wherefore this seemeth to be the reason which led and mooued the fathers to vse this word because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches by whome not onelie the verie natures themselues but also the proprieties of the natures were confounded and shuffled togither Now because Eutyches did mainteine and defend both these errors and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dooth beside the substance comprehend and set out the proprieties also by which proprieties that nature is defined and made to differ from others therefore it seemeth that the fathers vsed the word nature In summe let vs resolue vpon this and set it downe as an vndoubted truth that when we say Christ consisteth of two natures we mean his deitie and humanitie that is his Godhead and mans nature Let vs now come to the word Person Touching the terme person The later writers haue called that person which the former called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vse this word person Now amongst diuines and in their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person are distinguished after this sort Substance and person distinguished vnder the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall number are meant the persons which are in the cōmon essence or being hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto whereby one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person is separated or distinguished from the other and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance God or the Godhead it selfe is signified and meant but the Father the sonne and the Holie spirit are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is persons Neither was it rashlie or vnaduisedlie doone that the church hath vsed the name of person Boetius which Boêtius hath defined thus saieng that it is the communicate propertie of a reasonable substāce because many did throgh very great error freelie indifferentlie vse these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is person 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for one and the selfe same thing So the Latine writers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or person vsed and said substance euen as the logitians are woont so to call it wherfore that this doubtfulnesse might be auoided the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be vsed Now let vs speake more plainlie what we call person or meane by that name when we intreat of Christ whether that which is as it were compounded of the Godhead taking and of the flesh taken so that if it might be lawfull for vs to diuide Christ into his parts one part of his person should be his Godhead and the other part his manhood Christes manhood cannot properlie be called a person and the cause therof Not so at anie hand for Christ is not said or called a person properlie in respect of his humanitie or manhood but of his diuine nature onelie and yet that not to be separated from his manhood This is the cause or reason thereof If Christes humane nature had beene before it was taken of the diuine nature that is to say of the word there should then be an vnton of two persons and not of two natures and therfore Christ should be a person compact of two persons whervpon would insue manie absurd vnprofitable yea altogither wicked vngodlie matters whereof nowe there is neyther time nor place to speake Therefore thus it must be determined that the diuine nature tooke on it the humane nature forming and fashioning it and euen whiles it was formed and fashioned to haue taken it vnto it selfe that is to saie that Christes humane nature was neuer extant or had beeing but in the Godhead wherfore the humane nature in Christ Christ as hee is God is a person his godhead is a nature as also his manhood is not a person but the humanitie subsisteth and hath his being in this person of the word and therfore Christ is not either in imagination or in deede a double person but one person consisting of two natures For the word is
both a nature a person but the manhood is not of it selfe anie other thing than a nature which as they speake in the scholes is become a person There is but one sonne of God as there is but one Christ and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe so that now there are not two sonnes to wit one eternall and naturall or of the substance and being of the father and another created and adopted but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to himself so that also there are not two Christs but one onelie God and man together from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke Now we learne what we may call the person of Christ What the person of Christ is to wit the son of God manifested in the flesh Let vs come nowe to the word vnion for vniting is that whereby these two natures to wit the godhead or the person of the word and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What vnion or vniting is that is the coupling or ioyning together of two thinges or more in such sort that of those many things commyng together some one certaine thing is compounded or made There are diuers sorts of vniting And there are diuers kinds of vnitings for sometimes nature is vnited with the forme or shape sometime an accident with the subiect sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts to establish or make a whole matter Vniting and vnion or vnitie differ much Wherefore vniting is one thing and vnitie or onenesse as a man might saye is an other thing For one or onenesse is not a number neither dooth it necessarily presuppose a number◠except in things compounded but is the beginning of a number Therefore we hold that there is in christ a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person and an vniting of the natures These words are diligently to be marked so much the more bicause the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions troubles in these disputations matters Certainely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vniting and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is vnitie or onenesse are altogither diuers matters For in the mysterie of the Trinitie there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence and a Trinitie in the persons Againe on the other side there is in Christ an vniting of the natures and an vnitie or onenesse of the person Wherefore the Fathers saide well that in the diuinitie there is not an other thing and an other thing that is to say In the godhead there is but one simple being two thinges for in the diuinitie there is but one onely and most simple essence or being but an other and an other meaning persons For the Father is one an other is the Son and the Holie-ghost is an other The reason is because when we say another we mean the person when wee saye an other thing wee meane the nature Wherefore there is not an other thing in the diuinity for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods In Christ on the other side there is an other thing In Christ there is two natures but not two persons and an other thing because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood and not an other and an other bicause Christ is but one subsistence or being consisting not of two persons but of mans nature being taken which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion or vniting This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting Errors cannot be wel confūted til the personall vnion bee well knowne is called personall vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors wherewith too manie at this present are sicke and infected as we shall wel perceiue when we shall come to the matter it selfe wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God Isaiah 7.14 Matth. 1.23 First Isaiah saieth that this our sauiour is Immanuell that is God with vs. Iohn 1.14 Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie saith that the word became or was made flesh Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle in the epistle to the Hebrewes Hebr. 2 1◠when hee saith that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham Therefore the word taking openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn And the word was made flesh and both these laid togither doo also declare how Christ is God with vs and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall vnion is They which haue not interpreted that place of Iohn Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues haue fallen into diuerse errors for some haue expounded it thus the word was made flesh because the word was in sted of the soule vnto the bodie taken that is to say that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie that by that meanes he might become Christ So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule in the sted thereof did substitute the Godhead Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man and not a reasonable soule Tripartit hist lib. 5. cap. 44. lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil epist 74. August lib. Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted this also necessarilie foloweth that except the word had taken the soule vnto it likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person neither could Christ properlie haue suffered that I may let slippe many other most absurd points seeing that the soule properlie is troubled and afflicted Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh a ghost or fantasie and to that purpose haue wrested and writhen the worde similitude or likenes Roman 8.3 in these wordes of Paule God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh c whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They had a double name Docitae or Docetae and sprung indeede as some suppose from Simon Magus who helde that Christ came not in the flesh but that hee was Christ They held as the Marcionites did that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost See homil 2. following If these mens opiniōs were true christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus or a Sauiour as indeed one that had not bin born or had suffered for vs. There are othersome who forsaking these errors do notwithstāding fall into others no lesse
absurde and detestable bicause as the Poet saieth while fooles auoid some vices or faults they ru◠into others Nestorius whose heresie what it was is opened before For Nestorius interpreted these wordes the word became flesh after this manner that is to saie the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie and fullie powre foorth the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke The absurditie of the former interpretation Which interpretation if it be true Christ is not God but diuine or as you woulde say god-like or heauenlie and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones yet hee is not to be worshipped neither to be accounted as a Sauiour Whereas notwithstanding Paule attributeth vnto Christ Coloss 2. ◠not the fulnesse of the diuinitie but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead and to be both GOD and man which is a proper title to our sauiour Christ is far different from this to be one that beareth or carrieth God So that Nestorius maketh Christ God not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or person of the word but accounts him as most diuine onely by the presence comming force or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts and beside that loosing or destroying Christs person he maketh him a mere or only man he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood whereas on the other side the fleshe taken is sustained and vpholden in and by the godhead taking it Eutyches heresie confuted Eutyches falling into the contrarie error thought that by these words Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie the word was made or became flesh this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh and for the vniting of the natures he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead that is to say darknesse for light in which matter he was most foulie deceiued for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable it would follow if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth that the word ceased to be God so soone as it was made or became flesh because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod Exod. 4.2 and began to be a serpent Aristotle euen as Aristotle teacheth that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme another is brought in But if the abolishing or taking away be denied that a mingling a mixture may be established whether it be of the natures themselues it is of the Godhead and the manhood or of the properties of either nature then will insue that which is more absurd than the former to wit that Christ is neither God nor man but a certeine third thing compacted of both as the drinke called Mulsum made of wine and honie sodden together is neither wine nor honie alone but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundrie errours But all these errours are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted if the worde of assuming or taking bee rightlie expounded that is by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture Wherefore declare at the length will some saie The personall vnion what it is what is the hypostaticall or personall vnion in Christ It is the taking of mans nature which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature that is to say such a taking or vniting that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting but one subsistence or being onelie in which subsistence that diuine nature that is to saie the person of the worde beareth swaie or ruleth I repeate this againe The hypostaticall or personall vnion is that from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the soule Athanasius Athanasius who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth being chiefly the author thereof A similitude Wherefore as a certaine soule beeing ioyned to a certain bodie maketh one certaine person as Peter Paule Iohn So that eternall worde of the Father tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine that is to saye made the same so proper vnto it selfe that from hence commeth and proceedeth that person whiche is called Christ It appeareth plainelie vnto vs out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn Iohn 10.18 that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort Christ there saith I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake either secretlie in respect of his bodie The place of Iohn 10. expounded which cannot be vnderstood either of the or in respect of his soule or else in respect of his bodie and soule together or else distinctly and plainely in respect of his godhead Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrumēt that which is rather subiect to the soule or Soule alon◠But is it in respect of the soule it self considered by it selfe No indeede for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule and to take vp againe my selfe a soule Verily in the resurrection the soule is not taken vp againe but the bodie therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ either in respect of his bodie onelie or in respect of his soule onely or of them both togither What then is it in respect of them both together No rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing which may be saide to laie downe and to take vp his soule Wherefore Christ so spake according to his deitie and when hee saieth but of the godhead that he hath power to laie downe his life and to take it againe he dooth againe open that mysterie or secret which wee handle For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together are in suche sorte sette out that not two things but one alone is established and that without confusion yet so that the one nature beareth rule And it is meete to be marked that Christ saieth I haue power to laie downe not euery soule but mine owne Wherefore this cannot so be taken nor referred to this end that God should be the lord of all being things but he sheweth that that soule of his which he would lay down take again was otherwise his soule than other mens soules are theirs How then is it Christes soule will some men say Verily by personall vnion The scripture saith
that God dwelleth in vs Iohn 4.12 and yet we beleeue and confes that he dwelleth not in his saints by his vnion or vniting 1. Corinth 6.19 For our bodies are so the tēples of the holy ghost that yet they make not one subsistēce or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is seuerally by himselfe a certaine thing so likewise the holy ghost to wit god eternall So a wicked spirit and some one possessed with the same wicked spirit are ioined togither yet the vncleane spirite is not in man as the soule is in the bodie For the wicked spirit remaineth by it self a certain thing much like as the ghest is in his inne and againe the possessed with the wicked spirit is so become the inne or lodging place of the wicked spirite that yet the ghest is another from him As for vs we affirme the person of the word or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken vnto him that hee hath vnited himselfe thereto by a personall vnion so I say that the nature taken or assumed being sustained and vpheld in the nature taking or assuming maketh yet notwithstanding but one person which is the eternall worde of God Hereupon it foloweth that there are not two sonnes of God much lesse two Christs one the son of Marie the other the son of God Matth. 1.21.23 but one Immanuel and sauior onelie And this is the very true description of the personall vnion as wil yet much more plainelie appeare if we compare with this truth touching the personal vnion Sundrie sorts of errors the descriptions that are partlie felt from the olde heresies and partlie anew deuised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies First there are some that feare not openly to say that the habitation or dwelling of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered in Christ or that he doth no otherwise dwell in him than in other men yea than in other creatures Iacobus Andreas assertion and the same confuted Iacobus Andreas in those his Thesis or propositions by which he blowed to the field or bade the battel wrote the same euen in so many words as you would saie to wit that the habitation or dwelling of the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creaturs whatsoeuer as in respect of his essentiall habitation or dwelling for God is euerie where If a man demaund what shall be the difference of the personall vnion this shall be their answeare that it consisteth herein that into all other things the godhead hath powred forth some properties or qualities but into Christes humanity or manhoode hee hath powred all properties A wonderfull thing that after that these opinions haue nowe a long while since bin tossed and by the solemne and most iust iudgements of Christes church condemned and confounded by so many darts as haue come from heauen it selfe against the authors and fautors of these vngodlie blasphemies a maruellous thing I say that there should now spring vp some as dare be bolde both by worde and writing to maintaine and defend the same and that with so great reioicing and commendation of most vnskilfull men for who is he vnles hee be altogither blinde that seeth not that if the word be no other wise present in christ thā in many things that is to say beingly presently powerfully as in schools they were woont to say that then Christs person is destroied His heresie is declared before as Nestorius taught And that if wee grant an effusion or powring forth of all the proprieties of the godhead into the flesh assumed or taken that then the other part of the vngodlie assertion of Eutyches Concerning him and his heresie see before shall be erceted and set vp A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such diuers matters to wit the seperating of the naturs on the one side the effusion or powring forth of the properties of the one nature into the other on the other side first in our memory time most impudently fried and most vnskilfully by our vbiquitaries defended But let vs I pray you somwhat more narrowlie looke into the matter that we may see what it meaneth This I say that if the personall vnion be to be defined and determined by the effusion or powring foorth of all properties that then this Hee ouerthroweth the error by absurdities insuming vpon it The first absurditie which of al things is most false vngodly will follow therevpon to wit that God is in some sorte personallie vnited vnto all things created Why so Because the effusiō or powring forth of all some properties alone doo not differ genere as they say that is in the general or cōmon kind but according to more or lesse only wherfore either Christ was not otherwise God than any other thing though perhaps hee were somewhat more perfect than other things or else other things were diuine and god-like but Christs flesh most diuine and god-like The second absurditie Againe if the definition of the personall vnion were true it woulde followe therevpon that the three persons wer vnited to that flesh that was assumed or taken for the essentiall proprietie of the verie godhead it selfe are common to the three persons in one the self-same essence or being therfore to be infinite almighty knowing al things present euery wher c as they themselues now speak be not proprieties either of the father or of the son or of the holy ghost but onely of that alone and altogither singular godhead Wherevpon it foloweth that if we grant that definition of the personall vnion that then the 3 persons of the godhead were incarnat They were so called bicause they affirmed that God the father suffered Isiodor Orig. libr. 8. The third absurditie tooke flesh vpon them and so we shall proceede further than the patropassian heretiks Moreouer by this means the godhead it self shold be spoiled of his most essential proprieties euē this I say which are most proper therto or which do belōg vnto the same after the fourth maner or sort as the logicians speake that is to say doo belong vnto the whole Godhead alone vnto the Godhead and alwaies vnto the same for verilie if they be in deed communicated vnto the nature of man that was assured or taken then I say they doo now cease to be proper to the Godhead vnlesse we minde to make these termes proper common all one But the Lord speaketh otherwise in the prophet saieng I will not giue my glorie vnto another Isaiah 48.11 The fourth absurditie What more Him whome these men in the first part of their Nestorian opinion had made of him that was God man togither in one person but one that carried or bare God these now in another part of their Eutychian opinion conceit transforme him I say and his flesh hauing
in deed all the properties of the Godhead without exception powred into the same into the Godhead it selfe But now if there nothing happen to God or there be no accident in him as indeed there is not for whatsoeuer is in him is substance and not accidents as they speake in schooles How were the properties by which he is distinguished from things created indeed powred foorth into the flesh assumed and taken but that also mans nature should be changed into a certeine Godhead that is made or created He procureth an obiection But if these men will denie as sometimes I see them by the power of trueth it selfe constreined to denie that the monstrous presence euerie where for whose cause onelie whatsoeuer they faine they propound vnto vs that monster of vbiquitie to be esteemed and reuerenced dooth not cleaue vnto Christes flesh as to his proper subiect or that it is not accidents but onlie as accidents then I say who seeth not what monstrous things these are to ascribe vnto the flesh a reall presence euerie where in it selfe though not of it selfe the subiect whereof should yet notwithstanding not be the flesh it selfe but the Godhead which Godhead for all that should no otherwise be present to the flesh than to all other things whatsoeuer And whereof will these men be ashamed who are so farre off from being ashamed of these matters that yet they dare obiect this against vs that we exact points of diuinitie and religion to be handled according to the rules of philosophie The fift absurditie Certeinelie if so be it that the personall vnion must be defined and determined not by the vnion of the verie person of the word with flesh assumed or taken into one and the selfe same subsistence or being yet without anie reall vnion either of the natures themselues or of the essentiall properties wherwith they are indued but by the vniuersall effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces from the nature assuming or taking into the nature assumed or taken which monstrous opinion fet from the filthie stincking puddles both of Nestorius Eutyches also and twise sod Brentius Suindelinus Illyrichus and these other goodlie fellowes doo propound and deliuer vnto the churches of Christ I say that whether they will yea or no this must needs follow vpon it that Christ is neither God nor man much lesse GOD and man togither Chimaera is a monster hauing three heads one like a lion another like a gote the third like a dragon but a certeine Chimaera or monster made of most grosse confusion and discord Yea and what meaneth this that they themselues are of necessitie constreined to except some things after that they haue affirmed that all things are powred foorth The sixt absurditie For these things verilie to be without beginning to be of himselfe c. Cannot be attributed to a creature but they may be personallie vnited and are in deed personallie vnited because that must be true which Christ himselfe saith Iohn 8.58 Before Abraham was I am And this is true because that he that after so manie ages passed from the beginning of the world was made or became the sonne of Mary Iohn 1.1 euen he I say is that word which was in the beginning not so much for his full effusion or powring foorth of powerfull graces as for the bodilie vnion or vniting of the Godhead it himselfe in the person of the word wherefore if we will beleeue these men this sonne of the virgine Marie shall not be eternall because there was not powred into the flesh assumed or taken that same being without beginning whereof he cannot be partaker euen as they themselues confesse who are otherwise large sheders abrode or rather euerters and ouerthrowers of all properties They being thus driuen from hense euen as it were out of some hold or fortresse of their owne at the last they retire hither or haue this starting hole Another obiection answered or rather error confuted to say forsooth that the personall vnion consisteth heerin that the word dooth nothing but with the manhoood and by the manhood as the soule dooth nothing but with the bodie or by the bodie Peripatelians were subtle philosophers of Aristotles sect opinion who had their names of disputing walking I will leaue this to the Peripatelians to be reasons of whether it be true that the soule ioined to the bodie doth nothing of it selfe for there are not diuers wanting that doo stiflie and stoutlie denie the same But I affirme that that definition of the personall vnion cannot stand I grant therefore that from the time the eternall word tooke flesh vnto him that it did not at anie time doo anie thing without the flesh the reason is because this vnion is perpetuall and yet for al that it dooth not heerevpon follow that whatsoeuer the worde did he did it by the flesh Though it be granted I say that the word did nothing being separated from the flesh because that that flesh which it once tooke it neuer laid downe yet it followeth not that whatsoeuer the word did it did it by the fleshe which thing may bee shewed by most assured and manifest examples The first example Christ raised vppe himselfe by his owne diuine power who also had said of himselfe Iohn 10.18 I haue power to lay downe my soule or life and to take it againe Did therefore the Godhead through the flesh accomplish and performe that worke I suppose no man will say so The second example Iohn 1.48 Matth. 9.4 When Christ beheld Nathaniell absent did he see him with his bodilie eies And when without the disclosing of anie other man he saw the thoughts of his aduersaries did he this by anie sharpnesse of mans minde or vnderstanding No verilie Wherefore he saw all these things as he was God and not with minde or bodie and yet he saw them not without man because he being God is man also The third example Matth. 8.13 Iohn 9.6.7 c. When he healed the Centurians seruant being absent did he that as when he healed that blind man being present putting his hand to him and making the claie No in deed For he wrought this latter by his hands mooued through the flesh that is to say vsing the instrument of flesh assumed or taken whereas he healed the other by the onelie power of his Godhead And yet he was not free from flesh I confesse it He healed him therefore with the flesh but not through flesh Wherefore in this fellow-working togither of the Godhead the nature assumed or taken the personall vnion is not deposed or ouerthrowne but established rather Beside though I should grant the antecedent or first proposition He granteth the aduersaries that which they speake and yet they gaine nothing by it to witte that the worde dooth nothing but with and by the manhood yet that would not follow therevpon that they imagine
coulde not be spoken of the other without great impietie and vngodlinesse Notwithstanding by reason of the personal vnion excepting alwaies that which is attributed to the whole person and belongeth to both natures as when Christ is called the mediator and such like such things as are proper to the godhead and therefore as wee haue said can neuer be spoken of the manhoode are yet notwithstanding attributed to Christ as man and againe suche things as are proper to man are spoken and that rightlie of God but neuer or at no hand of the godhead The reason is because that the subsistence or being is denominated euen in the concret of one of the natures onelie So by the Sonne of GOD wee doo many times vnderstand 1. Timoth. 3.16 not onely the godhead of the sonne by it selfe but Christ manifested in the fleshe And by the GOD of glorie wee meane GOD become or made man and like wise by sonne of man we meane man assumed or taken of the eternall son of God Whereby it commeth to passe that by reason of that personall vnion some thinges in the concret may bee saide of the whole person which yet notwithstanding in the abstracte 1. Corinth 2.8 doo agree to one of the natures onelie So Saint Paule affyrmeth that the GOD of glorie was crucified which proposition is not true touching whole Christ One and the selfe-same proposition true and vntrue in seuerall senses that is to say if wee regarde or consider Christ as some whole matter consisting of some particulars but not true if wee vnderstand it of all or euery thing belonging to Christ that is to saye if wee seuerally and distinctlye consider his seuerall natures because the name of the GOD of glorie dooth in the abstract agree or belong to the onelie godhead Wherefore this proposition is true in the sense as before whereas otherwise it is a wicked and an vngodlie thing to say that the godhead was crucified Likewise in the creede of the Apostles Symbol Apost we say that wee beleeue in Iesus Christ the onely Sonne of God conceiued borne suffered c all which are truely and christianly spoken And why so Because that by the name of the Sonne of God in the councell we meane not God the word by himselfe alone but GOD manifested in the flesh So the Sonne of man talking with Nicodemus on earth was in heauen Iohn 3.13 the reason is because he that is man is God also and yet the manhoode of christ was at that time no where else Actes 1.11 but on earth euen as nowe also christs flesh being taken vp into Matth. 28.20 heauen and therefore absent from vs that Sonne of man is yet notwithstanding present with vs because the same christ is that true GOD Isaiah 66.1 Actes 7.48 whome neither heauen nor earth can containe Wherefore as these propositions are false the Godhead is the manhoode or the manhoode is the godhead so these are true This man is God and GOD the worde is man Nowe then if man be truely saide to be God by reason of the personall vnion it followeth therevppon that thinges attributed to the manhoode may rightlie be attributed to GOD and on the other side that things attributed to the Godhead may rightly be attributed to or spoken of christ man But let vs now come to the other part of the knowledge that concerneth our saluation that is to christes office This office is declared in his name Matth. 1.21 for he is Iesus that is to say a Sauiour because God the father hath therefore giuen him vnto vs that hee might saue vs to wit from our sinnes Now hee saueth vs by iustifieng vs because eternall life doth of necessitie agree with iustice or righteousnes Wherefore hee giueth vs life in giuing vs righteousnesse and that of his meere and onely grace through the power and effectuall working of his holie spirit One and the selfe-same power of God appeareth in mans creation and mans restitution sauing that this latter in my iudgement and before men though not before God seeme to be the more excellent and hard worke for euen that very selfe-same power of God which laide it selfe open in the creation of man must of necessity manifest it selfe also in restoring of man This is it that I meane as God the father did freelie through his sonne togither with his almightie power which is the holie-ghost create man so the selfe-same god dooth by sauing iustifie and by iustifieng saue man through his owne sin fallen from grace and yet made againe or anewe as it were through his sonne in the powerfull working of the holie spirit For the holy-ghost worketh in vs that instrument which we cal faith by which only we lay hold of christ after that we know him Neither is this faith some simple or bare accident but a habit as they call it in the schooles truelie grafted in vs not by nature but by gods meere and free grace But remember I pray you that by laying holde of Christ I vnderstand the apprehension or taking holde euen of Christ himselfe Two things principallie to be considered in Christ For wee must consider two things in Christ that is to saie hee himselfe god and man and such things as bee in him A fit similitude For example though it may be I confes that the similitude shall not agree in all points if in a casket or boxe I set before a man treasure he that will haue the treasure hidden or shutte vp therein must of necessitie take the casket or boxe it selfe Coloss 2.3 euen so there are in Christ all those treasures of wisedome and vnderstanding yea and to speake all in fewe wordes all those things which are necessarily required to our saluation Wherefore wee must of necessitie haue him that so we may obtaine those things that are in him and by the meanes of them eternall life But tell vs by what instrument wee doo take holde of him as it were by a certaine hand that hee may wholie become ours and wee his Verilie by faith Nowe the holie-ghost is hee who going about to woorke in vs this excellent instrument of faith vseth for that purpose the preachyng of the outwarde worde Roman 10.17 by which worde hee alone properlye woorketh inuisiblye in vs. But that we may the better vnderstand this point lette vs a little compare this naturall instrument of Faith to witte the outward worde with that supernaturall instrument that is the spirite Light of nature may somewhat helpe vs to obtaine naturall things but it can nothing further vs in the vnderstanding and beleeuing of heuenly things The doctor or teacher by speaking teacheth his scholers that which he speaketh For speech is the instrument and meane whereby we lay open the meaning of our mindes one of vs to an other by vnderstanding whereof they to whome wee speake become skilfull in those thinges that wee speake euen
lesse hard sharpe against vs than the verie papistes themselues who will haue the thing signified that is to say the verie bodie of Christ so to be ioined with or vnder or in the bread that in that verie place where that bread is there must also be the bodie of Christ which in like sort is to be vnderstood also touching the wine and the bloud of Christ If a man then should demand where is the verie bodie bloud of Christ in the action of the supper A grosse absurditie or two following consubstantiation if wee will answere according to their opinion we must say that it is truelie and in deed in our hands and in our mouth and therfore certeinelie vnlesse it presentlie vanish away within this bodie of ours with in or vnder the verie signes of the bread the wine being eaten and drunken Now we will shew and that by reasons not fet from humane philosophie as our aduersaries vntrulie say we vse such but from the verie word of God it selfe Two things to be handled viz. the confutation of the aduersaries the maintenance of the truth that this consubstantiation as we may trulie call it is no lesse absurd and erronious than transubstantiation as also that that communion or partaking which out of the pure word of God we propound and teach in our churches is a most secret and diuine matter Wherefore our iudgement is quite cleane contrarie to either of those opinions before rehearsed To begin we hold that such things as are spoken of the sacraments must be vnderstood sacramentallie For what I pray you is or can be more vpright than to haue all thinges spoken rightlie vnderstood and perceiued as the nature of that matter will beare whereof there is question A similitude or two explaning the point he hath in hand Certeinelie such thinges as the lawiers speake touching the law must be vnderstood euen as they are vsed in that verie science of the law and we must needs giue the selfe same iudgement of all things and arts whatsoeuer Such thinges therefore as are taught and deliuered touching the sacraments must be sacramentallie vnderstood What manner of coniunction then is the coniunction or knitting togither of the signe and the thing sacramentallie signified Verilie it is sacramentall The signes therfore and the things are ioined togither by that relation or respect which is betweene the signes and the thinges signified which yet once againe I doo most plainelie declare after this maner When we heare some man speaking vnto vs in the toong we vnderstand the words that come to our eares and strike them doo verie liuelie represent that vnto our mindes for the expressing and signification whereof they were vsed Another similitude For example as soone as we heare the word Rome presentlie wee thinke vpon that citie If a man name Cesar or the emperour Cesar or the emperour presenlie commeth to our memorie The reason whereof verilie is that that is well deliuered and taught in schooles to wit such thinges as are in the voice or words are signes of the affections that are in the soule or minde There is the selfe same consideration to be had of the sacraments for the sacraments are nothing else but visible words that is representing through our eies vnto our mindes things signified as words heard doo by our eares conuey vnderstanding to our minds likewise Therfore these visible sacraments of bread wine bring to passe that when I see and receiue that bread and that wine ioined with the word of God I doo withall conceiue in my mind and vnderstand that bodie that was giuen for me and that bloud that was shed for me as though I were led or carried euen vnto the thing it selfe being present And because I am commanded not onelie to looke vpon these signes with mine eies but also to take them Math. 26.26.27 eat them drinke them therefore dooth the faithfull minde euen lay hold of and applie vnto himselfe those things so signefied as they are deliuered and offered Touching which point we will largelie discourse in the fourth place to wit when we shall come to handle this question how both the signes and the thinges signified are receiued of vs whereas now we onelie dispute or speake touching the sacramentall coniunction of the signes themselues Two errours mainteined by the aduersaries with the thing signified Such as are not content with this sacramentall coniunction fall into a double errour not onelie that they doo in a a great and grosse errour verilie establish a real vnion of the signes with the things signified of which we haue spoken before but also they further adde this that euen in that verie place wheresoeuer the signes are offered to such as come to communicate there is present the flesh and the bloud of Christ that is to say they would haue vs confesse that euen his verie humanitie or manhood is in deed present there and is to be receiued or taken by bodily instruments As for vs we affirme that Christ in respect of his manhood The substance of that we are to know or beleeue touching the coniunction of the signes with the things signified in the Lords supper euen as when he was vpon the earth was no where else but in that verie place where he was conuersant so now he is not anie where else but aboue all heauens into which he ascended and that therefore he is not now togither with the signes offered to the bodie but togither with the signes truelie deliuered and giuen to the beleeuing soule euen as by the word we heare it and by the signe we see it Now it remaineth that we doo by some reasons fet from the word of GOD well wey and consider whether they or we swarue from the truth The first reason Rom. 1.3 Rom. 9.5 Galath 4.4 Philip. 2.7 Hebr. 2.16 Iohn 16.7.28 Matth. 28.20 Acts. 1.9 The holie scripture witnesseth that the sonne of God did personallie take vnto himselfe a true and verie bodie The selfe same scripture dooth attribute vnto the flesh of our sauiour Christ assumed and that both before and after the glorification thereof such things as doo plainelie prooue the truth of a naturall bodie as that he came that he went away that he was sometimes present and sometimes absent These things then doo of necessitie follow the trueth of Christes bodie which if a man take from it he must also needs take away the truth of the manhood of Christ and so come at the length to the heresie of the Marcionits or Dokits Marcionits or Dokits they were called Marcionits of one Marcion whose principall error was this that Christ did not appeare indeed and suffer indeed c. vpon the crosse but in phantasie or ghostlike apparition Concerning Dokitiae see homil 1. before going Tertullian wrote most learnedlie against this Marcion But these things are manifestlie taken away by their opinion who say that