Two Sermons and The Lords Supper, Sermon 1
THE FIRST HOMILIE, made the ſeuenth daie of Aprill, in the yeere 1574.
I Being about to ſpeake of the Lords ſupper, will begin with the words of our ſauior out of the ſeuenteenth chapter of the goſpell after Iohn.Iohn. 17.3. This is (ſaith the Lord Ieſus) life euerlaſting, that they know thee to be the onelie true & verie God, Two things principally to be obſerued in the text.and him whom thou haſt ſent Ieſus Chriſt. Out of theſe words therefore we vnderſtand or gather two things: The firſt is, that our ſaluation hangeth vponupon the certeine knowledge of the true and very God, who is alſo the one and onelie God. The other is, that this knowledge was for our ſaluation at the laſt made manifeſt vntounto vsus, in the perſon of his ſonne,The knowledge of God without Chriſt, is nothing to ſaluation. ſo that he that perceiueth ſomewhat of God, or knoweth him without Chriſt, perceiueth or knoweth nothing at all to ſaluation. Wherevpon alſo this neceſſarilie followeth, that if we once perceiue the perſon & office of Chriſt (for theſe two things muſt be ioined togither) we doo withall vnderſtand the true and onelie way of eternall life.
And foraſmuch as the controuerſie touching the Lords ſupper muſt be directed to this end or marke, this muſt alſo be confeſſed, that the controuerſies ſprong vp & ariſen touching theſe points cannot be taken away or ended, neither can we vnderſtand or perceiue what we ſhould truelie & rightly determine concerning the lords ſupper, except we begin with theſe things, which muſt needs be knowne, touching Ieſus Chriſt. Therefore before we come to intreat of the matter it ſelfe, that is to ſay, of the ſupper of the Lord, we wil ſhew what we ought by the word of GOD to beleeue concerning Chriſt.Sound knowledge of Chriſtes perſon and offices, will ouerthrow manie hereſies. Certeinelie the thing it ſelfe will declare, that that foundation or groundworke being once laid, it will come to paſſe, that manie errors will of their owne accord, without anie other helpe, fall downe togither and vaniſh away: for it is certeine and manifeſt, that manie queſtions toſſed to & fro, and handled touching this point, hauehave ſprong from hence,Ignorance and hypoc…iſie, two great meanes to mainteine error. becauſe that ſome, which do ſo ſtiflie defend this their opinions, either hauehave not vnderſtood, or els diſſembled, what we ought to iudge and beleeue touching Chriſt. Wherefore ſome points being firſt put downe, we will afterwards by this rule examine diuerſe, yea, repugnant & contrarie opinions touching the Lords ſupper, and will affirme ſuch as are agreeable to theſe ſtedfaſt and vnmooueable principles, to be true, and ſuch others as ſhall ſwarue from them, to be falſe.
In Chriſt we hauehave, I ſay,Two thinges cheeflie to be conſidered in Chriſt. ſpeciallie to conſider two things: his perſon, and his office. By the word perſon we vnderſtand or meane Chriſt himſelfe.His perſon: of which he ſpeaketh in this homilie. And his office we call that duetie or charge which the father laid vponupon him, to ſaue vsus, which thing he himſelfe did moſt perfectlie and plentifullie performe.His office: of which he ſpeaketh in the next homilie. Now in the firſt place we muſt ſpeake of Chriſtes perſon, which we muſt of neceſſitie determine to be ſuch a one, that he was fullie and throughlie able to indure and fulfill that duetie: for vnleſſe it be certeine that Chriſt was ſuch a one, as was able to accompliſh all things neceſſarie, meet and apperteining to his charge, we ſhall in vaine reaſon or diſpute concerning his office.In Chriſtes perſon two things. In Chriſt therefore there are to be conſidered theſe two things, to wit, the natures whereof he conſiſteth,The whole perſon it ſelfe. and the verie perſon it ſelfe, compacted as a man would ſay,The two natures wherof it conſiſteth. Firſt he ſheweth what we muſt vnderſtand by natures in Chriſt. of theſe natures. By the natures we vnderſtand not naturall power as when we ſaie, this is the nature of a man, of a beaſt, of a plant, of this or that thing, neither formall power (for ſo they ſhould be two perſons, of which Chriſt ſhould conſiſt) but theſe two ſubſtances wherof Chriſts perſon conſiſteth, & is as it were compacted.A ſimilitude. As for example, if we ſay that man is made of two natures, the one ſpirituall, which is the nature of the ſoule, the other bodilie, which is the nature of the body: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 hauehave riſen & ſprong vp within our remembrance certeine men, who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches, & partlie of Neſtorius, hauehave 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 foreign, that is diuinitie, but foreign, 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 foreign, 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 foreign,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 foreign, that is nature, dooth not agree to the diuinitie, for it is deriued or commeth foreign, 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 foreign, 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 vsus reſolue vponupon 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 vsus now come to the word Perſon.Touching the terme perſon. The later writers hauehave called that perſon, which the former called foreign, and the Latine writers hauehave reteined and kept in vſe this word perſon. Now amongſt diuines, and in their writings foreign that is ſubſtance, and foreign, that is perſon, are diſtinguiſhed after this ſort:Subſtance and perſon diſtinguiſhed. vnderunder the word foreign; or foreign in the plurall number, are meant the perſons which are in the cōmon eſſence or being, hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto, whereby one foreign a perſon is ſeparated or diſtinguiſhed from the other, and by the word foreign, that is ſubſtance, God or the Godhead it ſelfe is ſignified and meant, but the Father, the ſonne, and the Holie ſpirit, are called foreign, 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 ye communicate propertie of a reaſonable ſubſtāce, becauſe many did throgh very great error, freelie & indifferentlie vſe theſe two words foreign, that is perſon, & foreign, for one and the ſelfe ſame thing. So the Latine writers for foreign 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 foreign began to be vſed.
Now let vsus 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 vsus 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 hauehave taken it vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vsus 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 foreign,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 vntounto 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 ye neglect thereof bringeth forth great confuſions & troubles in theſe diſputations & matters. Certainely, foreign, that is, vniting, and foreign, 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 onelyonly 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 vsus 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 confū ted, 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 vsus.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 vsus: and all theſe things laid or ioined togither doo ſhew and determine what the perſonall vnion is. They which hauehave not interpreted that place of Iohn,Three errors by miſinterpreting the words of Iohn. out of the place in the epiſtle to the Hebrues, hauehave fallen into diuerſe errors: for ſome hauehave expounded it thus, the word was made fleſh, becauſe the word was in ſted of the ſoule vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vntounto 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 hauehave ſuffered (that I may let ſlippe many other moſt abſurd points) ſeeing that the ſoule properlie is troubled and afflicted. Others hauehave framed and deuiſed for true fleſh, a ghoſt or fantaſie, and to that purpoſe hauehave 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 foreign.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 vsus. 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 vntounto 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, onelyonly 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 hauehave 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 vntounto it that fleſh of the virgine, that is to ſaye, made the ſame ſo proper vntounto it ſelfe, that from hence commeth and proceedeth that perſon, whiche is called Chriſt. It appeareth plainelie vntounto vsus, 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 hauehave 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 hauehave ſaide: I hauehave 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 onelyonly: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 hauehave power to laie downe, not eueryevery 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 vsus,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 ye 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 vsus we affirme, the perſon of the word, or ſon of God ſo to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 vponupon 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 vntounto 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 eueryevery wher &c: (as they themſelues now ſpeak) be not proprieties, either of the father or of the ſon, or of the holy ghoſt, but onelyonly 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 vponupon 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 vntounto the ſame, after the fourth maner or ſort, as the logicians ſpeake, that is to ſay, doo belong vntounto the whole Godhead alone vntounto the Godhead, and alwaies vntounto the ſame: for verilie, if they be in deed communicated vntounto 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 giuegive my glorie vntounto 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 vntounto vsus that monſter of vbiquitie, to be eſteemed and reuerenced) dooth not cleaue vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vsus, 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 vntounto the churches of Chriſt) I ſay that whether they will yea or no, this muſt needs follow vponupon 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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. For though the artificer or handicrafts man doo nothing but by his inſtrument or toole,An apt ſimilitude. yet for all that the artificer and his toole are not vnited into one ſubſiſtence or being: this is my meaning, that that it dooth or worketh, is not therefore vnited with that, by which he dooth or worketh, for the dooer, and the inſtrument of doing are two ſeuerall and diſtinct things. So the ſmith or carpenter is not vnited with his hammer or mallet.Iohn. 1.3. Hebr. 1.1. The father created all things through the ſonne, as the holie ſcripture witneſſeth. Now becauſe the father created all things through the ſonne, ſhall it therevpon follow, that the father and the ſonne are perſonallie vnited togither? No verilie: For they are, and that in deed diſtinct perſons, Wherfore neither in the effuſion or powring out of powerfull graces, nor in the communicating of their powerfull working togither, can the perſonall vnion be well deſcribed. Let that rather remaine ſure, that I hauehave ſaid, to wit, that that vnion may rightlie be called perſonall,Perſonall vnion, what it is. by which it commeth to paſſe, that one perſon of two natures (the natures & properties of either nature remaining ſafe & ſound) becommeth one ſubſiſtence or being: of which two natures one, that is to ſay, the nature aſſumed or taken, hath his being in the aſſuming or taking nature, becauſe if either of them did ſubſiſt or had it being of it ſelfe, they ſhould be two perſons. Moreouer, before we take in hand to handle the matter it ſelfe, we muſt alſo declare, how from this perſonall vnion inſueth that which the old writers and fathers were woont to call communicating of the properties: for if both the natures themſelues and the properties thereof doo remaine ſafe and ſound, then there remaineth likewiſe vntounto either nature theſe proper attributes or things aſcribed vntounto them: and therefore it ſhould ſeeme, that it cannot be attributed to one nature, which is proper and peculiar to the other. And yet the ſcripture ſo ſpeaketh, as when it ſaith that God ſuffered,Acts. 20.28. yea and we our ſelues are taught ſo to ſpeake, in the apoſtles ſymbole or creed, when we ſay: I beleeue in Ieſus Chriſt, the onlie ſonne of God, who was conceiued, borne, ſuffered, cru…ified, buried, &c. Certeine rules are to be obſerued for the right vnderſtanding of the communicating of proprieties.That we may well know and vnderſtand this matter, we muſt earne to diſtinguiſh the things attribu… to either nature. If we will ſpeake …perlie and truelie, we ſay that things attributed to either of the natures, muſt moſt properlie and in deed be attributed to be ſame.The firſt rule. And this is the firſt rule. Wherefore we affirme that Chriſt, as in reſpect of his Godhead, is the eternall ſonne of God, is infinite, is euerie where, is eternall, is the creator of all things, cannot die, is inuiſible, &c. All which things are truelie and properlie attributed t… that nature of the ſon of God which is v…ited to fleſh. Now theſe things are proper to his humane nature or manhood, that it had a beginning, that it was conceiued by the Holie ghoſt, that it ſuffered, and at the laſt roſe againe. Now from whence commeth this difference? Verilie from this, that the natures remaine ſafe, ſound, and vnconfounded, leaſt if in the perſonall vnion they were confounded, that which were ſpoken of ones nature ſhould be attributed to the other. And the ſecond rule is this.The ſecond rule Certeine things are attributed to, or ſpoken of Chriſt, according to his perſon and not as in reſpect of his natures, tha… is to ſay, ſuch thinges in deede as reſp…ct the perſon, and are attributed to his a…d perſon, which cannot yet be ſpoken ſ…uerallie of either of his natures: as for example, if I ſay Chriſt is the mediator: th…t word mediator, neither to the Godhe…d by it ſelfe nor to the manhood by it ſel…e, or apart from the Godhead, but to that whole perſon of Chriſt, for he is a mediator according to either nature: and …heſe things attributed togither to Chriſt, are perſonall, that is to ſay, reſpect his whole perſon, which vnleſſe we confeſſe we ſhall fall into the hereſie of Neſtorius and his partakers. And yet in the meane while this & ſuch like, are ſo the works of the whole perſon,Leo. One ſort of heretiks had both theſe names, becauſe they held that Chriſt had but one will, & one nature, and not two wils, or two natures anſwering to his two natures. that notwithſtanding either of the natures doth diſtinctlie bring with it his proper & peculiar worke to this common deed of redemption, mediation, &c. as Leo teacheth in that his famous and woorthie epiſtle, which alſo we muſt know and beleeue, leaſt we ſhould fall into that other hereſie of the Monoth…its or Monophyſits. And yet the kno… is not vntied, nor the mat…er diſpatched. Therefore we are principalie to marke yet a certeine other maner o… ſpeech touching Chriſt, which as it is t…ue in reſpect of the whole perſon,Theſe darcke termes are expounded afterwards by the author himſelfe. den…minated either of the concrets: ſo it cann…t without great impietie be attributed … either of the natures, conſidered by themſelues, or in the abſtract: as for example, when we ſay, God (to wit, the word … ſonne) redeemed the church by his blo…d: ſo we doo rightlie beleeue and ſay, th…t God ſuffered and died,Acts. 20.28. which that vngod…ie man Neſtorius denied. For vnleſſe God had beene he that ſuffered for vsus, his ſuf…ering could not hauehave brought ſaluation vntounto vsus. Wherefore we ſay that God was …rne, ſuffered, dead, and roſe againe. And againe on the other ſide we ſay, that the ſonne of man was in heauen, when he ſpa…e on the earth with Nicodemus.Iohn. 3.13. And …his we affirme euen by this rule following, to wit,The third rule. that whatſoeuer words or termes, are proper to either of the natures, that is to ſay, the Godhead or the manhood, they may be changed in the concret, but not in the abſtract.Abſtract, and what he meaneth thereby. But ſome man will ſay, What is it that you call the abſtract? We call the very forme it ſelfe, being by thought ſeuere… from the matter, an abſtract: as for example, If I doo in my mind comprehend, no ſome iuſt man or other, but ſome iuſtice or righteouſneſſe of a man: which alſo hath place in other predications. Iuſtic… therefore or righteouſneſſe ſhall be a c…rteine abſtract, that is to ſay, a thing c…ſidered by it ſelfe, and not in the ſubiect, or particular partie wherein it is.Concret, and what he meaneth therby. And …he concret ſhall be the matter or man hi…ſelfe, as a iuſt man, to wit, he that is …ndued with that iuſtice or righteouſnes. S… in Chriſt, we conſider in the abſtract t…o natures, the manhood and the Godhea…, but in the concret we comprehend him God & man. Therefore let Godhead and …anhood be the abſtracts, and God and …an the concrets. And then I ſay, that the thinges attributed to the humanitie nay be attributed to God, or ſpoken of …im, though they cannot be attributed to the Godhead, or ſpoken thereof: and on th… other ſide I affirme, that ſuch things as be proper to the Godhead may be attributed to man, though not to the manhood. Wherefore this propoſition is true: This man is God, or this: The eternall word of the father is man: but theſe are vngodlie and blaſphemous: the Godhead is the manhood, or the manhood is the Godhead. So we muſt ſay and beleeue God, that is to ſay, the ſonne was borne of the virgine, ſuffered, dead, &c. but not the Godhead: for he in deed that is God ſuffered, but not his Godhead.1. Pet. 3 18. Therefore when Peter ſaith that Chriſt ſuffered, he added in the fleſh. So Paule, Rom. 1. Rom. 1.4.He was mightilie declared to be the ſon of God according to the ſpirit. The cauſe of this predication or ſpeech in the abſtract, is the verie perſonall vnion it ſelfe, to wit, becauſe that that ſubſiſtence or being, or that perſon Chriſt, is by the figure Synecdoche, That is … put for the whole.ſo denominated of either of his natures. Wherfore, whether he be called man, he is yet notwithſtanding vnderſtood to be God, or whether he be called God, he is like wiſe vnderſtood to be man. But when wee ſpeake of the natures themſelues, to wit, either the manhood or the Godhead, by theſe abſtracted names ther is nothing els ſignified or meant but the ſeuerall natures in and by themſelues. And leaſt theſe maner of ſpeeches might ſeeme to anie man darke and ſtrange,He preuenteth an obiection. as though chriſtian religion were conteined in certeine hiddē myſteries and ſecrets far remooued from common vſe & vnderſtanding, whereas rather on the other ſide, the Holie ghoſt inſtructing the church, touching theſe moſt darke & hidden matters, hath kept a moſt groſſe (as you would ſay) and common mamer of teaching.Theodoretus. Two ſimilitudes to explaine the point by. Theodoret doth rightlie and trulie tell vsus, that euen the common people are hardlie accuſtomed to ſpeake anie otherwiſe: for if Peter ſpeake, who would not rather ſay that Peter ſpeaketh, than ſay that Peters bodie or toong ſpeaketh? and yet notwithſtanding, neither dooth Peters minde, nor his foot nor anie other member ſpeake, but his toong or mouth.
But becauſe theſe things hauehave euen perſonallie growne vp (as it were) togither, and are come into one ſubſiſtence or being, that is truelie in the concret attributed to, and ſpoken of the whole, which if it were vttered of the parts of the whole conſidered ſeuerallie, and by themſelues, ſhould be falſlie ſpoken. What more? By reaſon of this perſonall vnion, though now it be diſſolued through death, Peter ſhalbe ſaid to hauehave died and ſat at Rome, whoſe ſoule yet notwithſtanding, neither …s dead, neither anie where placed vponupon …he earth. So when I ſay, the eternall …onne of God died, I conſider and meane him as he is whole Chriſt, although I denominate him after one of his natures, to wit, his mortall or humane nature. So againe I ſay: This man forgiueth ſinnes, and yet not as he is man of himſelfe (for it belongeth onelie to God to forgiue ſinnes) but becauſe he is God and man in one perſon togither.Marke. 2.7.
And this is the manner of ſpeaking which the ancient diuines hauehave called the communicating of proprieties,Communicating of proprieties, and what it is. which ſome do not rightlie diſtinguiſh from making common, and other ſome diſputing whether it be reall yea or no, hauehave bewraied moſt groſſe ignorance. And this may eaſilie be decided and determined by the vnmoouable foundations aboueſaid, if we hauehave not a contentious ſpirit, wherevnto if we ſhould not yeeld, doubtleſſe the old ſophiſters and naturall philoſophers, if they were aliue at this day, wold laugh vsus to ſcorne.Religion alloweth no falſhood. Diuinitie & chriſtian religion admitteth no falſe matter or point: therefore that trope or maner of ſpech touching the communicating of the proprieties, is altogither true in the concret, that is in Chriſts perſon, being weighed, as if ſome whole thing ſhould be conſidered iointlie and togither, neither was it woont otherwiſe to be vſed in the church. But in the abſtract, that is in the appellatiue or common name, or name whereby either of the natures be called, it can neuer be vſed without vngodlineſſe, much leſſe can it be taken for true, that the proprieties of the Godhead may be ſpoken of the manhood, or the proprieties of the manhood ſpoken of the Godhead. And theſe be the points, which we being about to ſpeake of the Lords ſupper, hauehave thought needfull to be propounded and deliuered, that therefore remaining behind, may be the better vnderſtood, of which we will, by Gods grace, ſpeake at large in the next reading or lecture.