Valentinus Gentilis – The Tritheist Put to Death In Bern, Chapter 17
CHAP. XVII.
Concerning the Communication of Attributes, or Proprieties.
THE Scripture speaking of the Son of God, doth attribute that to one of his Natures, which doth properly belong to the other, as Ioh. 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven, but the Son of man, who is in heaven. Christ, indeed, as he was the Son of Man, could not then be in Heaven when he spoke these words, nor did he take his Flesh from Heaven. But all this is proper to the Divine Nature only, and may be truly affirm'd of whole Christ, by reason of the Personal Union of the Word with Man.
By a like form of Speech we say, that God suffer'd and died for us, which are very improper expressions, [if strictly taken] since God cannot properly be said to suffer or to dye; and therefore we use to add, by way of Explication, that it was in Carne assumptâ, in the Flesh that he assum'd.
This way of speaking the Ancients call'd Communicatio Idiomatum, or the Communication of Properties; others call'd it foreign, Damascene styles it foreign; as if we should say, by way of Exchange, or Mutual distribution, whereby we attribute that to the Human Nature, which is proper to the Divine▪ as to be in Heaven before the Incarnation; or when, contrariwise, that is attributed to the Divine Nature, which is proper only to the Human, as to Dye and to Suffer; or else we affirm that of the whole Person, which is truly and properly said, because Christ in his Human Nature did dye, thô not in his Divine.
Nor is this way of speaking in any wise improper or absurd: For don't we, in respect of us Mortals, upon the very same account say, That such a Man is dead, thô this cannot be properly said of the whole Man; for Man is Mortal only in respect of his Body, his Soul is Immortal, and survives after Death. Yet because the Union of Soul and Body is that which makes the Man one, hence it is that we affirm that of the whole Man, which only agrees to one part of him. So we say of Christ, that he Suffer'd and is Dead; which properly do not at all belong to the Divinity, but agree to Christ as he is Man, who is withal the same God, and one and the same Christ.
Here Gentilis cries out, That we divide Christ, and make a separation in him, and yet allows that there are some properties, which agree to the Word only, before he took our Nature upon him. Such is that, Iohn 3. No one hath ascended up into heaven, but he that came down from heaven, the Son of man which is in heaven, &c. And Iohn 8. Before Abraham was, I am. And Heb. 1. By whom also he made the Worlds. Now if, as Gentilis grants, these expressions can only agree to the Word before he was made Flesh, I think it is plain, that they are improperly attributed to the Human Nature; and by consequence, we rightly explain them by a Communication of Properties [or Idioms].
And that we do not divide Christ, nor make or maintain here any Separation, is clear from the Doctrine of our Church, wherein we do plainly acknowledge two Natures in Christ, and yet without any confusion of the Natures, the Personal Union making one and the same Christ, the Son of God and the Blessed Virgin. We likewise distinguish the Natures by their Properties, but do not divide or separate them, and by this means preserve whole and entire all the Offices of the Person of Christ.
We say it is proper to the Human Nature to Weep, to be Hungry, to Sleep, to Suffer to Dye, to be circumscribed in a Place, &c. On the other hand it is proper to the Divine Nature, to be impassible, to make the Worlds, to be with the Father from all Eternity, before Abraham was, &c. We say that the Offices of Christ are to redeem Mankind, to intercede for them, to govern his Church, and whatever else may be said to belong to Christ, either as Prophet, Priest, or King.
Now Gentilis being able to deny nothing of all this, 'tis clear, that he quarrels with the plainest expressions meerly out of heat and desire of Contention; and doth therefore unjustly Style this Orthodox Doctrine, such impertinent Trifles as deserve to be hiss'd out of the Church; which he hath not only done in his Epistle Dedicatory to the King of Poland, but hath also, without any just or sufficient reason, maliciously calumniated the same in the 12th Book of his Antidotes. But there is yet at the bottom of all this, something still more monstrously Heretical; for he often affirms, that the foreign had truly and properly Flesh and Blood, that the foreign was truly and properly ☞Nail'd to the Cross; and that the same foreign did properly Suffer. Now had this been said of Christ, it had been without Controversie true; but since foreign doth signifie only the Divine Nature in Christ, which is united to the Human Nature in the Person of Christ, he must necessarily think, that either a Spirit hath Flesh and Bones, which our Saviour himself hath positively deny'd, or else that the foreign was incorporated, or rather turn'd into flesh; or as the Monophysites did affirm, both the Natures were made into one; unless he will confess with us, that 'tis an improper way of speaking to say that the foreign did Suffer or Dye; whereby that is attributed to the Divine Nature, which is proper only to the Human, by reason of the Hypostatick union of both Natures in Christ, which is what we call Communicatio Idiomatum.