50. Decade 4, Sermon 6

The Selfsame Son Is True Man; Consubstantial with Us: And Therefore True God and Man, Abiding in: Two Unconfounded Natures, and in One Undivided Person. The Sixth Sermon

THE things themselves and their order do require, that after I have spoken generally of God, of his unity, and of his trinity, I further entreat particularly of the persons of the reverend Trinity; and first of all, of our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man; then of the Holy Ghost: wherewith if our minds be endued, all things whatsoever we speak and hear shall tend to the glory of God’s name, and to the salvation of our souls, Let us therefore pray, &eis The everlasting Father, the original and author of all things, begot the Son by an everlasting and unspeakable begetting. For the whole scripture with one agreement doth call God a Father, yea truly, an eternal or everlasting Father. But none is a father of his own self, but a father

ro VL] OF CHRIST TRUE AND VERY GOD. 239 of his son: and for because he is the everlasting Father, he must therefore necessarily have an everlasting Son, equal unto himself in all respects, co-eternal, and consubstantial with him. St Paul undoubtedly for the confirmation of this catholic verity allegeth out of the old Testament two testimonies. “Unto which,” saith he, “of his angels said God at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” and again, “I will be his Father, and he shall be my Son:” all which words he applieth unto Christ Jesus, the Son of God. Of whom also Micheas beareth witness, saying: “And thou, Bethlehem Ephrata, art little to be among the thousands of Judah; yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be the ruler in Israel: whose goings forth” (or spreadings abroad)! “have been from the beginning and from everlasting.” Whereupon the Son of God himself, in the Gospel after John, saith: “Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” And John saith: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.” But he doth understand by The Word,” not the word which is spoken and so vanisheth, not the counsel of God, but the person of the Son. For by and by he addeth, “And the Word became” (or was made) “flesh.” And we do know that the Son of God, not the determination or purpose of God (as heretics do vainly imagine), was incarnate. But he which in time was incarnate was with the Father from everlasting and before all beginnings, and therefore also true God with the true God. For, “The Word,” saith he, “was with God, and God was the Word:” because in the beginning, namely, from everlasting, he was with God. These simple and plain testimonies, delivered unto us out of the scriptures, and therefore most true, concerning the everlasting begetting of, the Son by the Father, are sufficient, I think, for them that are not curious. For the seripture doth not here fulfil> the vain desires of curious men, neither yet reasoneth of these points subtilly; but rather delivereth and setteth down but a few things, in which it is our parts to believe. But that which the scripture either doth not set down, or else in few words shadoweth out, either we are ignorant of to our health, or else, sticking

[[! emanationes, Lat.] [2 cogitationem, Lat.] [3 non explet, Lat.]]

to that that is set down, we seek not further for more. The holy father Cyril, expounding that saying of the evangelist John, “In the beginning was the Word,” saith: “Let us not, seeking things infinite and which cannot be contained within bounds, busy our brains about a consideration that cannot be expressed, and never can have an end. For neither will we grant a beginning of beginning, neither yet will we yield that the Son was begotten of the Father in time: but we will confess that he is with the Father from everlasting. For if he was in the beginning, what mind may be able at any time to climb beyond that was? Or when shall we so comprehend in our mind that was, that it go not before or outreach our thoughts? Upon good reasons therefore and worthily the prophet Esay, being astonished, as crieth out, And who shall declare his generation?> For he, passing all capacity of minds, and being far above and beyond all reason of man, is unspeakable.” And anon after he saith: “Because the Son is before all worlds, he cannot be begotten in time: but he is evermore in the Father as in a fountain; as he saith of himself, ‘I went out and came from the Father. Yor we do understand the Father as a fountain, in whom the Word is his wisdom, his power, the engraven form of his person, his brightness, and his image. Wherefore, if there never were any time wherein the Father was without his wisdom, his power, the engraven form of his person, his brightness, and finally his image; we must of necessity and force confess, that the Son also is co-eternal and everlasting with him, since he is the wisdom, power, &e. of the Father everlasting. For how is he the engraven form of his Father’s person, or how is he the most perfect image of his Father, unless he have perfectly obtained and possess the beauty of him, whose image he is? And it is not absurd that we said, the Son is to be understood in the Father as in a fountain. For the name of fountain doth signify nothing else than as from whom: and the Son is in the Father and from the Father; not flowing abroad, but either as brightness from the sun, or as heat from the fire wherewith it is endued. For in these examples we see one from one to be brought forth, and both to be so co-everlasting, that the one can neither be without the other, nor yet keep and retain the quality of their nature. For how shall it be the

sun, if it be deprived of his brightness; or how shall brightness be, unless there be a sun from whence it doth come? And how shall that be fire that wanteth heat? or from whence should heat come but from the fire, or else from somewhat else peradventure not far distant from the substantial quality of fire? As therefore the qualities which proceed from these bodies are together with them from whence they do proceed, and evermore declare from whence they do come; so is it to be understood in the only-begotten. For he is understood to be of the Father, but he is believed to be likewise in the Father: not differing from the nature of his Father, neither yet next his Father second in nature: but always in the Father himself, and with him, and from him, according to the manner of his unspeakable begetting!.”

[1 Οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ μὲν ἀρχῆς οὐκ ἔσται, kara τὸν ἀκριβῆ Te kai ἀληθῆ]

[λογισμὸν, ἀλλ᾽ εἰς ἀμήρυτον μέντοι καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὁ περὶ αὐτῆς ἀποδη-]

[μήσει λόγος. τέλος δὲ οὐκ ἐχούσης τῆς ἀεὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀνόπιν φυγῆς, καὶ τὸ]

[τῶν αἰώνων ἀναφοιτώσης μέτρον, οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ γεγονὼς ἀϊδίως δὲ μᾶλλον]

[ὑπάρχων μετὰ πατρὸς εὑρεθήσεται ἦν γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ” εἰ δὲ ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ποῖος,]

[εἰπέ μοι, δυνήσεται νοῦς τὴν τοῦ ἮΝ ὑπερανίστασθαι δύναμιν; πότε δὲ]

[ὅλως τὸ ἮΝ ὡς ἐν τέλει στήσεται, προανατρέχοντος ἀεὶ τοῦ διώκοντος]

[λογισμοῦ καὶ τῆς ἑπομένης αὐτῷ προαναπηδῶν ἐννοίας; ἐπὶ τούτῳ δὴ dpa]

[καταπεπληγμένος ὁ προφήτης φησὶν Ἡσαΐας, Τὴν γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγή-]

[σεται; ὅτι αἴρεται ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἡ ζωὴ αὐτοῦ. αἴρεται γὰρ ὄντως ἀπὸ τῆς]

[γῆς ὁ περὶ τῆς γεννήσεως λόγος τοῦ μονογενοῦς τοῦτ᾽ ἔστιν, ὑπὲρ πᾶσάν]

[ἐστι διάνοιαν τῶν ὄντων ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα λόγον, ὡς εἶναι λοιπὸν]

[1 ἀνεξήγητον.«… ἐπειδήπερ καὶ αὐτῶν ἐστι τῶν αἰώνων πρεσβύτερος ὁ υἱὸς,]

[i τὸ μὲν ἐν χρόνῳ γεγενῆσθαι διαφεύξεται ἦν δὲ καὶ διὰ παντὸς ὡς ἐν πηγῇ]

[i τῷ πατρὶ, κατὰ τὸ παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λελεγμένον, ᾿Εγὼ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον kal]

[ἥκω. πηγῆς τοιγαροῦν νοουμένου τοῦ πατρὸς, ἦν ὁ λόγος ἐν αὐτῷ σοφία, kal]

[δύναμις, καὶ χαρακτὴρ, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ εἰκὼν ὑπάρχων αὐτοῦ. καὶ εἰ]

[χρόνος ἦν οὐδεὶς, ὅτε λόγου χωρὶς καὶ σοφίας καὶ χαρακτῆρος καὶ ἀπαυγά-]

[σματος ἦν ὁ πατὴρ, ἀνάγκη συνομολογεῖν ἀΐδιον ὑπάρχειν τὸν υἱὸν, ὃς ταῦτά]

[3 ἐστι τῷ ἀϊδίῳ πατρί. πῶς γὰρ ὅλως ἐστὶ χαρακτὴρ, πῶς δὲ εἰκὼν ἀκριβὴς,]

[Ι εἰ μὴ πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μεμορφωμένος ὁρᾶται τὸ κάλλος, οὗ καὶ ἔστιν εἰκών; ἀδι-]

[κήσει δὲ ὅλως οὐδὲν TO ws ἐν πηγῇ TG πατρὶ TOY υἱὸν ὑπάρχειν ἐννοεῖν”]

[H μόνον yap τὸ ἐξ οὗ τὸ τῆς πηγῆς ἐν τούτοις ὄνομα σημαίνει. ἔστι δὲ ὁ υἱὸς]

[i ἐν πατρὶ kal ἐκ πατρὸς, οὐκ ἔξωθεν, ἢ ἐν χρόνῳ γεγονὼς, ἀλλ ἐν τῇ τοῦ]

[πατρὸς ὑπάρχων οὐσίᾳ, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀναλάμψας, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἡλίου τυχὸν TO]

[ἀπαύγασμα αὐτοῦ, ἢ καθάπερ ἐκ πυρὸς ἡ ἔμφυτος αὐτοῦ θερμότης. ἐν yap]

[τοῖς τοιούτοις παραδείγμασιν ἕν μὲν ἐξ ἑνὸς γεννώμενον ἔνεστιν ἰδεῖν, ἀεὶ δ]

[οὖν ὅμως συνυπάρχον καὶ ἀχωρίστως προσὸν, ὡς δίχα τοῦ ἑτέρου μὴ εἶναι]

[δύνασθαι kab’ ἑαυτὸ τὸ ἕτερον, καὶ διασώζειν ἀληθῆ τὸν τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως]

[λόγον. πῶς γὰρ ὅλως ἥλιος οὐκ ἔχων ἀπαύγασμα, ἢ πῶς ἀπαύγασμα μὴ 16 [BULLINGER, IIL]]

242 THE FOURTH DECADE. [sERM. Thus far Cyril. And these points surely concerning the Father, and the unspeakable begetting of the Son of God, are stedfastly to be believed according to the scriptures.

Furthermore, touching the Son of God, let us firmly hold and undoubtedly believe, that he is consubstantial (or, of the same substance) with his Father, and therefore true God: that the selfsame Son, being incarnate for us and made man, subsisteth in either nature, as well of God, as also of man; howbeit so that these natures are neither confounded between themselves, nor yet divided: for we do believe one and the selfsame our Lord Jesus Christ to be true God and true man. All and every one of which points throughout their parts we will plainly, and according to the measure of grace that God shall give us, declare unto you. Son About the word Zomoousius, which the Latinists agreewith ably! have translated consubstantiale, consubstantial, the ecclesiastical history doth testify that there hath been long and much altercation among the ancient writers. What it signifieth, and how it was taken of that most famous and solemn synod of Nice, the most learned and godly Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Ceesarea, briefly and pithily expounded in this sort: “In that the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father, it hath an express signification, for because the Son of God hath no similitude or likeness with creatures that were made, but is resembled and likened to the Father alone who begat him; neither is he of any other substance, essence, or being, than of the Father.” And the same Eusebius anon after saith: “Unto which sentence and opinion, in this manner expounded, it appeareth we may well subscribe: seeing we do know that the best learned and famous bishops and interpreters among those that were ancient, reasoning of the Godhead

[ὄντος ἡλίου τοῦ amavyalovros αὐτό; πῶς δὲ kal πῦρ, εἰ τὸ θερμαίνειν οὐκ]

[ἔχει; πόθεν δὲ τὸ θερμὸν, εἰ μὴ ἐκ πυρὸς, ἢ παρὰ τινὸς ἑτέρου τῆς τοῦ]

[πυρὸς οὐσιώδους ποιότητος οὐ μακράν που κειμένου; ὥσπερ οὖν ἐν τούτοις]

[τὸ ἐνυπάρχειν τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐκ ἀναιρεῖ τὴν συνύπαρξιν, ἀεὶ δὲ συντρέχοντα]

[τοῖς γεννῶσι δεικνύει τὰ γεννώμενα, καὶ μίαν ὡς πρὸς αὐτὰ τὴν φύσιν κλη-]

[ρωσάμενα” οὕτω καὶ ἐφ᾽ υἱοῦ. κἂν γὰρ ἐν πατρὶ καὶ ἐκ πατρὸς νοῆται καὶ]

[λέγηται, οὐκ ἔκφυλος ἡμῖν καὶ ξένος ἢ ὡς per αὐτὸν δεύτερος εἰσβήσεται,]

[ἀλλ᾽ ὧν ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ συνυπάρχων ἀεὶ, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφηνὼς, κατὰ τὸν]

[ἄῤῥητον τῆς θείας γεννήσεως tpémov.—Cyril. Opp. Lib. 1. in Joann.]

[Tom. 1v. pp. 11, 2. Lutet. 1638.] [1 concorditer, Lat.]]

of the Father and the Son, used this word Zomoousius.” These be Socrates his words in the first book of histories and the eighth chapter? Surely the godly governors of churches, being constrained by the hypocrisy, craftiness, and malice of heretics, did themselves use, and caused others also to use, words most pithy and as little doubtful as might be, whereby partly they might manifestly express the sound truth, and partly discover and reprove, yea, and also thrust out, the deceits and malicious practices of heretics. Arius confessed that the Son of God was God; but in the meanwhile he denied that the Son was consubstantial with his Father: wherefore he declared that he did not sincerely confess the true Godhead of the Son. Neither makes it any great matter, though there be not expressed in the holy scripture some apt and fit word to set out and declare the thing in so many letters as it is written in another tongue, so that that be read to be manifestly expressed in the scriptures, which by the word is signified. Wherefore, if we shew that the Son is of the same substance or nature with the Father, and so equal with and like unto God, and one with him; we have then made sufficient and plentiful demonstration, that the Son is homoousius, or consubstantial with the Father. The prophet Zachary, bringing in the person of God speaking, sayeth: “Arise, O thou ς sword, upon my shepherd, and upon the man that is my fellow (or my co-equal): smite the shepherd, and the sheep (of the flock) shall be scattered abroad.” Lo, God calleth the shepherd, that is smitten, his fellow or co-equal. And who is that shepherd that was smitten, the history of the gospel doth declare; pointing out unto us the very Son of God himself, our Lord Jesus Christ. Neither doth it hinder but further our cause, that Hierome readeth not, “The man that is co-equal with me;” but, “The man cleaving unto me.” For as he denieth not that Amith doth signify co-equal, so he setteth down another word no less effectual. For when he translat-

[2 Παραστατικὸν δὲ εἶναι τῷ πατρὶ τὸ ὁμοούσιον, τὸ μηδεμίαν ἐμφέρειαν]

[πρὸς τὰ γεννητὰ κτίσματα τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ éupaivew μόνῳ δὲ τῷ πατρὶ]

[τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ πάντα τρόπον ἀφωμοιῶσθαι, καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐξ ἑτέρας τε]

[ὑποστάσεως καὶ οὐσίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. “Qu καὶ αὐτῷ τοῦτον ἑρμηνευ-]

[θέντι τὸν τρόπον, καλῶς ἔχειν ἐφάνη συγκαταθέσθαι ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν]

[τινὰς λογίους καὶ ἐπιφανεῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ συγγραφέας ἔγνωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ]

[πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ θεολογίας τῷ τοῦ ὁμοουσίου συγχρησαμένους ὀνόματι.]

[— Socrates, Hist. Eccles. Lib. 1. cap. 8. p. 25. ed. Reading.] 16—2]

eth it, “The man cleaving unto me,” he would express the inward and very substantial (that I may so term it) inherence or co-equality of the Father and the Son. For he addeth in his commentaries: ‘” And the man which cleaveth unto God, who 1s it but even he that saith, ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me!?’”

Again we read in the gospel of John: “The Jews therefore sought to kill Jesus, not only because he had broken the sabbath-day, (ἀλλὰ καὶ πατέρα ἴδιον ἔλεγε Tov Θεὸν,) but said also that God was his Father, (even his proper, or very own:) making himself (ἴσον) equal to God.” Furthermore? the Grecians expound ἴσος, that is to say, equal, by this word, ὅμοιος, that is to say, like. Neither can that equality anywhere else have place than in the substance. For the Jews understand that whereof the Arians will be ignorant, that the Lord after a certain peculiar and special manner calleth God his Father; to wit, ἔδεον, his proper or very own Father, by nature or by birth, of whom the Son being naturally begotten is natural and consubstantial with his Father. For it followeth: Making himself equal to (or with) God,” namely in virtue or power, in everlastingness, and essence. For the same Lord sayeth in the same evan- gelist: “I proceeded and came from God.” He did not say only, “I came,” but, “I proceeded.” He proceeded from the Father such a one in substance as the Father is, surely “Light of light, very God of very God.” For he sayeth again to the Jews: “Verily I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” He doth not say, “I have been,” or, “I will be;” but, “I am;” alluding to the name of the Lord Jehovah, and declaring that the substance of his Godhead is the very same with the substance of the Father, and that he is therefore consubstantial with the Father. For yet again he sayeth more plainly: “I and the Father are one:” one, I say, not in concord or agreement, but in selfsameness and being; for [1 Super virum cohzrentem mihi.Pro eo quod nos vertimus, super virum cohwerentem mihi, id est, προσκεκολλημένον μοι, Aquila interpretatus est, super virum contribulem meum, id est, σύμφυλόν pov: Symmachus, super virum populi mei, quod Hebraice dicitur Amithi. Jerome proceeds to explain “vir cohzerens Deo,” by John xiv. 10, and Luke xxiii. 46.—Hieron. Opp. Tom. 11. p. 1789. Par. 1704.]

[2 emterum, Lat.; now.]

[3 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577 called; appellasse, Lat.]

in that place the power and majesty of God are handled. And when the Jews would without further stay stone the Lord to death, having spoken these words, they declared plainly enough after what sort they understood his words: for they stoned blasphemers to death, who with revilings either impaired Gods glory, or else usurped and took the same unto themselves.

Hitherto belongeth that which Paul speaketh concerning the Son of God, saying: “Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creatures, because all things were created by him.” For if he be the image of the invisible God, he must needs be fellow (or co-equal) with God. For in another place Paul calleth the same Christ, “the engraven form of God, and his express image,” and answerable in all respects most truly to his pattern or first figure. An image verily and likeness is of things that are not unequal or unlike, but of things equal and like. And he is called the firstborn,” because he is Prince and Lord4, not that he is reckoned among creatures. For all things that were made, by him they were made: therefore he is no creature, but true God, to wit, of the nature and substance of God, one with the Father. The same apostle saith to the Philippians, that the Son is “in the form (or shape) of God.” But to be in the form (or shape) of God is nothing else than in all respects to be fellow (or equal) with God, to be consubstantial with him, and so indeed God himself. For what it is to be in the form or shape of God, is by the contrary clause very manifestly declared. For it followeth: ‘ He took upon him the form of a servant.” Which is again expounded by that which followeth: “Being made in the likeness of men;” that is to say, being made very man, unlike in nothing to all other men, sin excepted; which in another place is plainly expressed. And here he addeth again; “And found in figure as a man.” Therefore, to be in the form of God is to be co-equal and consubstantial with God: for he addeth, He thought it no robbery to be equal with God.” For robbery is the taking away of that which another doth owe; for it is possessed by injury. The Son therefore is co-equal with the Father, and true God by nature and after the most proper manner. And this is the meaning of St Paul his words: Albeit the Son were

See Vol. 130.]

of the same glory and majesty with the Father, and could have remained in his glory without humiliation or debasement; yet had he rather abase himself, that is to say, take unto him the nature of a man, and cast himself into dangers, yea, even into death itself. Tor otherwise according to his Godhead he suffered no change; for God is unchangeable, and without variableness.

Since the case so standeth, godly is the saying of St Ambrose in his book de Fide against the Arians, and fifth chapter: “Seeing therefore thou dost know this unity of substance in the Father and the Son, not only by the authority of the prophets, but also of the gospel; how sayest thou that Homoousius, consubstantial, is not found in the sacred scriptures? as though FHomoousius were somewhat else than that he saith, ‘I went out from God the Father; andI and the Father are one!?”” &c. The scholar, St Augustine, following his master, Ambrose, in his controversy had with Pascentius confirmeth Homoousius by places of scripture, and declareth that this is holily used in our faith and religion?. The same doth he also in his third book against Maximinus, bishop of the Arians, and fourteenth chapter? But what needeth heaping up of more words? For I trust it is plainly enough declared by evident places of holy scripture, that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, and that so it must be believed. We hope also that in the treatise following this selfsame point shall not a little be made manifest by testimonies of scriptures.

[} Cum ergo hanc unitatem substantize in Patre et Filio non solum prophetica sed et evangelica auctoritate cognoscas; quomodo dicis in seripturis divinis ὁμοούσιον non inveniri, quasi aliud sit ὁμοούσιον quam quod dicit, Ego de Patre exivi; et, Ego et Pater unum sumus?—De Fide Orthodoxa cont. Arrian. cap. 5. Ambros. Opp. Tom. 11. Append. col. 352. Par. 1686—90. The Benedictines consider this not to be a work of Ambrose. See also James on Corrupt. of Script. &e. p. 31. ed. 1843.]

[2 Homoousion, quod in auctoritate divinorum librorum cogebamur ostendere, etiam si vocabulum ipsum ibi non inveniamus, fieri posse ut illud inveniamus, cui hoe vocabulum recte adhibitum judicetur.—Aug. Pascent. Ep. 173. Opp. Par. 1532. Vol. mw. fol. 150. col. 3.]

[3 Hoc et illud homoousion, quod in concilio Niceno adversus heereticos Arianos a catholicis Patribus veritatis auctoritate et auctoritatis veritate formatum est.. Quid est, inquam, homoousion nisi, Ego et Pater unum sumus?—Id. Vol. vr. fol. 151. col. 1.]

Arius with his complices denied that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God. But the most true scripture doth so evidently prove and confirm it, that none which loveth the truth from his heart can doubt anything at all thereof. We will presently? cite some testimonies and arguments that are most plain and apparent, whereby, through the assistance of the Holy Ghost, our faith may be established, and the catholic and sound truth itself made manifest.

In the third chapter of Matthew, the heavens are opened to our Lord as he was baptized by John Baptist, and the Holy Ghost came down in the likeness of a dove, and alighted upon the head of our Lord Jesus Christ; and forthwith was a voice heard out of the clouds, pronounced by the glorious God in this sort: This is my beloved Son, in whom my soul is well pleased.” And John saith in his gospel: I

oie

saw the Spirit descending from heaven in the likeness of a dove, and it abode upon him; and I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and abiding upon him, this is he which doth baptize with the Holy Ghost. And I saw and bare witness that this is the Son of God.” Hereunto belongeth that which Peter, being asked of the Lord, “But whom do ye say that I am?” answered in the name of all the disciples; Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” And again, the Lord objecting this, “Will you also be gone Ὁ Peter again made answer in the name of them all; “Lord, unto whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of everlasting life. And we believe and have known, that thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” We also verily are called the sons of God, howbeit by adoption: but Christ not by adoption, neither by imputation, but by nature. For in the fourteenth chapter of Mark the high priest saith unto our Lord: “Art thou Christ, the Son of the blessed? In Matthew also the same high priest saith: I adjure” (or charge) “thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Son of the living God. Jesus answered, I am. For ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of hea-

[[ in presenti, Lat.] [5 Et Joannes Baptista apud Joannem Evangelistam, Lat. [6 Christus, Lat. omitted.]]

ven.” Which appeareth to be repeated out of the seventh chapter of Daniel. Furthermore, they bring this confession of the Lord before Pilate as blasphemous, and not to be satisfied but with death, crying: “We have a law, and according to our law he ought to die; because he made himself the Son of God.” But they themselves in the history of the gospel thunder out these words against the Lord: We are not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.” It is certain therefore, that the Jews accused our Saviour for none other cause of high treason committed against God’s majesty, than for that he named himself the natural, not the adopted, Son of God; for the first did not deserve death, but the last was worthy of death!. For we read also in the fifth of John: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him not only because he had broken the sabbath-day, but also for that he said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God,” (or God’s fellow.)

Lo, thou hast the manner how he called himself the Son of God, not by adoption, or reputation, but by nature and substance. For yet again the Lord himself objecteth this to them that would have stoned him: Many good works have I shewed you from my Father: for which of these good works do ye stone me? The Jews answered again, saying, For thy good works” (or well-doing) “we do not stone thee, but for blasphemy; namely, because thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” Lo, what could be spoken more plainly? “Thou makest thyself God.” And what, I pray you, had he spoken, whereof they gathered these things? “1 give unte my sheep everlasting life, neither shall they perish for ever, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me is greater than all: and none can pull them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” To give life everlasting doth belong to the power of God: to preserve, and so to preserve that none may be able to pluck them out of his hands, belongeth to the same power. Now the Lord proveth this saying with this argument or

[1 Rather, For the last did not deserve death, but the first was]

[worthy of death. Hoc enim non erat capitale, illud erat capitale, Lat.] [2 Jesum, Lat.] [8 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577 his saying; suam assertionem,]

[Lat.]]

reason: None is able to pull the sheep out of my Father’s hands: therefore none can pull them out of my hands. The proof of his antecedent, Because the Father is greater than all; that is to say, is the greatest of all, whose divine power is above all. The proof of his consequent, Because I and my Father are one; to wit, not in will and agreement only, but in majesty also and power, whereof we do at this present entreat; not of concord or agreement, but of power to make alive and to preserve. Touching which the Lord himself most plentifully discourseth throughout the whole fifth chapter of St John’s gospel, shewing that he forgiveth sins, that by his power he maketh alive and raiseth up from the dead, even as his Father doth; therefore that he is of one and the same divine power and majesty with God the Father. These things are so evident, plain, and manifest, that albeit we had none other testimony?, yet these may abundantly suffice to prove the assertion of the true divinity or very Godhead of the Son of God, that the Son indeed is true and very God.

Again the selfsame our Lord and Saviour with great liberty of speech and plainness of words, without any manner of riddle, dark sentence, and obscurity of words, openly and expressly saith to his disciples: Let not your heart be troubled (or vexed). You believe in God, believe also in meI am the way, the truth, and the life. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. Do ye not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” And certain it is that Christ our Lord is the heavenly doctor or teacher, the most constant” defender of the truth, who neither hath seduced neither yet could seduce and lead out of the way, no, not so much as one. But [he] biddeth us believe in him as true and very God. Therefore our Lord and Saviour is true and very God. For in another place he saith most plainly: John am the lively bread (or the bread of life) that came down from heaven: he that believeth in me hath life everlasting.” He again in the gospel plainly pronounceth, and saith: “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may also glorify thee: as thou hast given him power of all flesh, that so many as thou hast given him, he might give them life

[6 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577 testimonies; testimonia, Lat.] [5 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577 «ll manner. ]]

250 THE FOURTH DECADE. [sErM. everlasting. And this is everlasting life, that they should know thee only true God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Ἶ Christ.” By which words he hath expressly proved both the unity of God (that is to say, that there is but one God), against the Ethnicks who worshipped many gods; and notably touched the distinction of the persons, in the meanwhile likewise declaring himself to be very God with the Father. For by and by he addeth: “Glorify thou me, Ὁ Father, with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before this world was.”

Here I think must not be over-slipped of me the argument of Tertullian, which I will recite unto you, dearly beloved, out of his book, De Trinitate, wherein he doth gather together very many most sound and strong reasons of Christ his divinity or Godhead. If (saith he) Christ be only man, why hath he appointed and set us down such a rule to believe, wherein he should say, And this is life everlasting, that they might know thee the only true (or very) God, and whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ?” If also he would not be known to be God, why doth he add, And whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ,” but for that he would be taken also for God? Because, if he would not be known to be God, he would have added, And whom thou hast sent, the man Jesus Christ τ but now Christ neither hath added, neither yet hath delivered unto us in doctrine, that he is man only, but hath joined himself to God; to the end he would be known by this conjunction or joining together, that he also is God, as indeed he is. We must therefore believe, according to the preseript rule, in one Lord true and very God; and consequently in him whom he hath sent, Jesus Christ: who had at no hand (as we have said) joined himself to the Father, unless he would be known to be God also. For he would have separated himself from the Father, if he would not have been known to be God. For he would have placed himself among men only, if he had known that he was man only: neither would he have joined himself with God, if he had not also known himself to be God. Now also touching as he is man, he saith nothing; because no man doubteth that he is man: and he joineth himself to God not without good cause, that he might set down a form of his divinity or Godhead to them that should believe. If Christ be only man, how is it that he saith, And now

glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world was?’ If before the world was he had glory with God, and possessed glory with the Father, then was he before the world. Neither had he had glory, if he had not been afore, that he might possess glory: for none can have a thing, unless he which possesseth the thing be afore. But Christ had glory before the creation of the world; therefore he was before the creation of the world. For if he had not been before the creation of the world, he could not have had glory before the creation of the world, when he himself was not. But he could not as a man have glory before the creation of the world, who then was? when the world was made. But Christ had glory; he was therefore before the world was made: he was not therefore man only, who was before the world was made. Therefore he is God, because he was before the world was made, and possessed glory before the world was made” After these words Tertullian doth [1 So also ed. 1584: but ed. 1577 as man.]

[2 Rather, who then was not. See Latin original. ]

[3 Si homo tantummodo Christus, quare credendi nobis talem regulam posuit, quo diceret, Hec est autem vita eterna, ut sciant te unum et verum Deum, et quem misisti Jesum Christum? Si noluisset se etiam intelligi, cur addidit, Et quem misisti Jesum Christum; nisi quoniam et Deum accipi voluit? Quoniam si Deum nollet intelligi, addidisset, Et quem misisti hominem Jesum Christum. Nunc autem neque addidit, nec se hominem nobis tantummodo Christus tradidit, sed Deo junxit, ut et Deum per hanc conjunctionem, sicut est, intelligi vellet. Est ergo credendum secundum praescriptam in Dominum unum verum Deum, et in eum quem misit Jesum Christum consequenter; qui se nequaquam Patri, ut diximus, junxisset, nisi Deum quoque intelligi vellet: separasset enim ab eo, si Deum intelligi se noluisset. Inter homines enim tantummodo se collocasset, si hominem se esse tantummodo sciret; nec cum Deo junxisset, si se non et Deum nosset. Nunc et de homine tacet, quoniam hominem illum nemo dubitat; et Deo se jungit merito, ut credituris divinitatis suse form. lam poneret. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit, Et nunc honorifica me gloria quam habebam apud te priusquam mundus esset? Si antequam mundus esset gloriam habuit apud Deum, et claritatem tenuit apud Patrem, ante mundum fuit; nec enim habuisset gloriam, nisi ipse prius fuisset, qui gloriam posset tenere: nemo enim habere aliquid poterit, nisi ante ipse fuerit qui aliquid tenet. Sed enim Christus habet gloriam ante mundi institutionem: ergo ante institutionem mundi fuit. Nisi enim ante institutionem mundi esset, ante mundi institutionem gloriam habere non posset, quum ipse non esset. Sed enim homo gloriam ante mundi institutionem habere non potuit,

shew, that these things are not meant of the predestination, but of the substance, of Christ. But thus far of this.

St Paul the apostle in his epistle to the Romans declareth in plain words not once or twice, that our Lord Jesus Christ is true and very God. For he speaking of Christ in his ninth chapter saith: Which is God in all things to be praised for ever.” The words are very well known which the same apostle writeth in his first epistle to the Corinthians, and eighth chapter. St John the apostle and evangelist doth so manifestly declare the divinity or Godhead of the Son in his canonical epistle, that he which seeth and perceiveth it not is blind both of body and mind. In the end of the epistle he saith: “We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us a mind, that we should know him who is true: and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This same is true (or very) God, and eternal (or everlasting) life.”

Now it is God by “whom we live, move, and have our being,” as Paul witnesseth: but by Christ our Lord we live, move, and have our being, as he himself hath expressly taught in the gospel after John: Christ therefore is true and very God.

In the forty-third and forty-fifth chapters of Esay the Lord saith: “Tam, I am the Lord; and there is no Saviour without me. A just God and a Saviour, there is none beside me.” But Jeremy in his twenty-third chapter calleth Christ the son of David, Jehovah, and our Righteousness. Likewise in Esay 3 the Father speaking of his Son saith: “I have given (or made) thee the light of the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my health unto the end of the world.” Moreover, seeing there is no other God but one, none other salvation and righteousness save that divine righteousness only, it followeth consequently, doubtless, that Christ is true and very God, in all respects coequal with his Father.

In the same Esay the Lord saith: “I have sworn by mine ownself, the word of righteousness shall go out of my mouth, and it shall not be drawn back again: because every knee

[qui post mundum fuit: Christus autem habuit; ante mundum igitur]

[fuit. Non igitur homo tantummodo fuit, qui ante mundum fuit.]

[Deus est igitur, quoniam ante mundum fuit, et gloriam ante mundum]

[tenuit.—Tertull. Opp. Novatian. de Trinitate. cap. 24. p. 723. Par.]

[1664. See above, p. 129, note.]

shall bow unto me, and all tongues shall swear (by my name)?.” And Paul saith: “There is a name given unto Christ which is above all names, that in the name of Jesus everything? should bow, of things in heaven, of things in earth, and of things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that the Lord is Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father.” It must needs be therefore that Christ is true and very God. For seeing he is worshipped and also served, seeing we confess him to be Lord; that surely turneth not to the reproach and ignominy, but to the honour and glory, of God the Father. For in the gospel after John thus saith the Lord: “The Father hath given all judgment (to wit, all jurisdiction, and all government, all glory, power, and authority) to the Son; that all might honour the Son as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father that sent him.” Hereunto therefore belongeth that? which we read in the prophet Esay: “1 the Lord, Hu (or, myself?) is my name? and my glory I will not give to another,” (or to a stranger, &c.) But he giveth his glory to the Son: he therefore in his substance, according to his divinity or Godhead, is not a stranger or severed from the Father, albeit he be acknowledged to be another several person. What doth the Lord in the gospel after John say? “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine ownself with the glory which thou gavest me with thee before this world was?” No, but, “which I had with thee ere the world was.” “1 had,” saith he, not, “I received” albeit the scripture doth oftentimes use this word for the mystery of dispensation.

In Micheas the Christians say: “All people (one with another) walk in the name of their God: as for us, we will walk in the name of our God.” Furthermore, they walk in the name and the way of Jesus Christ, saying in the gospel, “Iam the way,” and “the door:” “I am the light of the world; he that followeth me doth not walk in darkness.” That Christ therefore is God, who is he that can be ignorant? For the Lord saith in KEzechiel, “I will feed my flock myself alone:” and anon he addeth, “My servant David shall feed it;” meaning Christ, the son of David, that only universal [! The translator’s addition. ] [2 genu, Lat.; knee.]

[3 iterum, Lat. omitted; again. ] [21 myself, ed. 1577.]

[> See above, page 132.] [6 hic mundus, Lat.; this world.]

pastor or shepherd of the church, and therefore true God. For the universal pastor or shepherd must be a king and a priest!, must be everlasting, must know all things, must be omnipotent, must be present with all men in all places. The Son of God therefore is true and very God, because he is the Messias.

Furthermore, what is more manifest and less called in controversy, than that God only forgiveth sins? It must needs be therefore, that nothing is more evident and less doubtful, than that we believe Christ to be true and very God, because “He is the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.” i. Again, whereas Paul truly calleth Christ “our hope;” (for Esay foretold, “In him shall the Gentiles trust;”) and Whereas Jeremy crieth, “Cursed be the man that putteth his trust in man, but blessed is the man that putteth his trust in God;” we must necessarily confess that Christ is God. For in John he oftentimes repeateth: “” Verily I say unto you, he that believeth in me hath everlasting life.”

I could bring innumerable examples of this kind out of the scriptures, which witness that the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, is of one and the selfsame nature with the Father, and therefore is very God of very God: but I trust that to holy hearers and not given to contention those which I have already cited will suffice.

It remaineth that we declare unto you, that the Son of (God was incarnate for us, and was born very man of the virgin Mary, consubstantial, or of the selfsame substance, with us in all points, sin excepted. The law, the prophets, and the apostles, shew unto us most manifest arguments of the true flesh or humanity of the Son of God.

For in the law the Lord saith: “The Seed of the woman shall crush the serpent’s head.” But who knoweth not that the head of the serpent is the kingdom, force, or power of the devil? And that Jesus Christ brake this power, the whole scripture doth witness. And here he is called the Seed of the woman. And truly he is called seed, to verify his true human nature: and he is termed the seed of the woman, not of the man, because of his conception by the [1 Rather, For the universal Shepherd, King and Priest, must be,

Holy Ghost, and his birth of the virgin Mary. And because she was the daughter of David, of Abraham, and Adam, it followeth that the son of Mary was very man. Tor as we have heard it said to Adam, “The Seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent’s head: so also we read that the same promise was renewed and repeated to Abraham in these words: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the world be blessed.” And Paul to the Galatians manifestly saith, that this Seed of Abraham, wherein we have obtained blessing, is Christ Jesus. The same apostle saith, “For in no sort took he the angels, but he took the seed of Abraham:”—by angels doubtless excluding all manner of spiritual substances: by the seed of Abraham understanding the very substance itself of the flesh of man. For he addeth: “Wherefore in all things it became him to be made like unto his brethren. And because they be partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part with them (of the same).” Verily, the scripture draweth the lineal descent of Christ most diligently from the loins of Ab#ham unto Jacob, and from him again to Judas, and from him in like sort to David. To him again the promises of the incarnation of the Son of God are renewed. For Nathan saith to David: “Thus saith the Lord, When thy days be fulfilled, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy body, and will stablish his kingdom: he shall build a house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.” Neither is there any cause why any man should interpret this of Salomon. For he was born while his father David lived, and his kingdom quickly decayed. But Nathan speaketh of a son which should be born to David after his _ death: “When thou shalt sleep with thy fathers,” saith he, “I will set up thy seed after thee.” And what manner of seed this should be, he most evidently declareth, and saith, “which shall proceed out of thy body.” For in the 132nd Psalm we read; “Οὗ the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy seat.”

Furthermore, Mary the virgin descended lineally from the seed? of David, of whom Christ our Lord was begotten and born, of whom the angel speaking, and expounding those old and ancient prophecies, saith unto the virgin: “And the

[2 So also 1584: but 1577 of the seed.]

Lord God shall give unto him the seat of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be none end.” Hereunto also belongeth that which Elisabeth saith to the virgin which came out of Galilee into the hill-country of Juda: “And whence cometh this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.” Truly Matthew and Luke draw the lineal descent of Christ from the loins as it were! of David even unto the virgin Mary, which conceiveth by the Holy Ghost, that is, the Holy Ghost making her fruitful. She, when the months were fulfilled that she should be delivered, brought forth a son: and he which is born in all respects appeareth to be true and very man: he is laid in a manger, wrapped in swathling clouts; he grew in stature, and increased in years, according to the manner of man’s body; he is wearied, he is refreshed, he is glad, he is sad, he is hungry, he is thirsty, he eateth, he drinketh, he feareth, and, to be short, he dieth: which the truth of the history of the gospel in many words declareth.

Neither is the scripture itself ashamed to call Mary the mother of our Lord, not the putative or supposed, but the true and natural mother, which of the substance of her own body gave true flesh and substance of man to the Son of God; the angel of God so witnessing with say, and saying, “A virgin shall conceive in her womb, and shall bring forth a son.” Lo, he saith, “in her womb.” And again, in Matthew the selfsame angel saith, That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” Whereupon the apostle unto the Galatians saith, that the Son of God is made of a woman,” to wit, according to man’s nature. For Christ is the fruit of the body of David, and of the virgin Mary, begotten and born of the loins of David: and John also, the apostle and evangelist, saith, “The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” In calling God flesh, doubtless he calleth him very man. For the same apostle in another place saith: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God; and every spirit which confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God.” Therefore we freely pronounce that Valentinus, Marcion, Apelles,

[1 prosopia veluti lumbis, Lat.]

ν.} νΙ.7 OF BOTH NATURES IN CHRIST. 257 and Manichzeus, denying the true and very flesh of Christ, are of the devil; and therefore that they by all means, together with all their disciples and sectaries, are to be avoided. This treatise of the true flesh of Christ we knit up with these most plain words of Paul: “When Christ was in the form of God, he made himself of no reputation, taking on him the form of a servant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in figure as a man. He humbled himself, being made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Wherefore it is without doubt, that the Son of God took true and human flesh, and in the same is consubstantial or of the selfsame substance with us in all points, sin excepted.

Neither did our Lord, after he was risen again from the dead, though he were glorified, put off or lay aside his true body which he had once taken and put on; and his glorification doth not take away the truth of his nature. For he saith unto his disciples, A spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.” Wherefore he carried that his true and very flesh into heaven with him; in his true flesh he appeareth always for us in the sight of God the Father; in his true flesh he will come to judge the quick and the dead; in his true flesh they shall see him which crucified” him. Christ according to this nature (who in respect of his Godhead is no creature, but a Creator) is a creature; for the flesh of Christ hath beginning, and lineally descended from Adam, who is the creature of the living God. And albeit these things be sufficiently fenced with the force of the scriptures, yet it shall not seem irksome unto you, dearly beloved, to rehearse the opinion of the blessed father Cyril, which concerning the same matter he hath left written in his epistle unto Successus, bishop of Isauria diocese3, in these words: “Because I found in your advertisement such a kind of thing, as though the holy flesh of Christ, the Saviour of us all, were turned into the nature of his deity after his resurrection, so that now he should seem to be wholly and solely God, we thought good also to make answer unto this.” And a few words after: “After the resurrection certainly it was the

[2 confixerunt, Lat.; which pierced.] [3 Isaurize Dioceesariensis, Lat. Diocaesarea was one of the dioceses]

[in the province of Isauria, and under the patriarchate of Antioch.—]

[Bingham, Antiq. of Christ. Ch. Book 1x. chap. 3. ὁ 16.] 17 [BULLINGER, IIL]]

selfsame body which suffered, but yet not having now in itself man’s infirmities. For we affirm not that it abideth hunger, labour, or any such like thing, but we confess that now it is incorruptible: and not this only, but also that quickeneth and giveth life. For it is a body that both hath and giveth life, that is to say, of the only-begotten Son of God; and it is glorified with the most worthy brightness of God; and it is known and taken to be the body of God. Therefore if any man say that that is God’s body, as the body of a man is man’s body, he swerveth not from allowable reason. 2cor.v. ~~ Whereupon I think that most blessed Paul also said, Though we have known Christ after the flesh, now yet henceforth know we him no more.” For being, as I said, the proper body of God, it far passeth all human bodies. But a body made of earth could not abide to be turned into the nature of the deity or Godhead. For this is impossible: otherwise we abase the Godhead, as if it were made, and as if it had taken somewhat into itself which according to nature doth not properly belong to it. Hereby it is proved to be as much folly to say that the body is turned into the nature of the Godhead, as that which is the Word to be changed into the substance of flesh. For as this is impossible, because 10 is proved to be a body not able to be turned and changed; so also it is not possible that any creature can be turned into the essence or nature of the Godhead: but flesh is also created; and therefore we say that the body of Christ is divine, because it is the body of God, and beautified with unspeakable glory. And now let us confess that it is uncorruptible, holy, and giving life: but that it is changed into the nature of the Godhead, neither have any of the holy fathers so thought or taught, neither do we so think.” Thus

[1 Επειδὴ δὲ εὗρον ἐν τῷ ὑπομνηστικῷ ἔμφασίν Twa λόγου τοιαύτην,]

[ὅτι μετὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ]

[εἰς θεότητα, φησὶ, μετακεχώρηκεν, ὡς εἶναι τὸ ὅλον θεότητα μόνην, δεῖν]

[φὠήθην καὶ πρός γε τοῦτο εἰπεῖν. Μετά γε τὴν ἀνάστασιν ἦν μὲν αὐτὸ τὸ]

[σῶμα τὸ πεπονθὸς, πλὴν οὐκέτι τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας ἀσθενείας ἔχον ἐν ἑαυτῷ ”]

[οὐ γὰρ ἔτι πείνης, ἢ κόπου, ἣ ἑτέρου τῶν τοιούτων τινὸς δεκτικὸν εἶναι]

[φαμὲν αὐτό” ἀλλὰ λοιπὸν ἄφθαρτον καὶ οὐχὶ τοῦτο μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἱ]

[ζωῳοποιόν ζωῆς γὰρ ἔστι σῶμα, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστι, τοῦ μονογενοῦς κατελαμπρύνθη]

[δὲ καὶ δόξῃ τῇ θεοπρεπεστάτῃ, καὶ νοεῖται Θεοῦ σῶμα. Τοιγάρτοι, κἂν εἴ]

[τις αὐτὸ λέγοι θεῖον, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, οὐκ ἂν]

[ἁμάρτοι τοῦ πρέποντος λογισμοῦ. Ὅθεν οἶμαι καὶ τὸν σοφώτατον Παῦλον]

far Cyril. And Theodoretus, bishop of Cyrus, Dialog. τι. Eranist. saith: “1 will shew that the body of the Lord, yea, after the ascension, was called a body. Hear Paul therefore saying, Our conversation is in heaven, from whence we look for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.” Therefore it is not changed into another nature, but remaineth indeed a true and very body, replenished with divine glory, and casting forth beams of light. But if it be changed into another nature, their bodies also shall likewise be changed; for they shall be fashioned like unto him. But if the bodies of saints keep the substance of their nature, the body of the Lord likewise hath his substance unchangeable?” Thus far Theodoret.

Furthermore, when we profess that Christ hath true and very flesh, we do not mean flesh without soul. For we must confess, that Christ hath a reasonable or human soul, not

[εἰπεῖν ἘΠ yap ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστὸν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν.]

[Θεοῦ γὰρ, ὡς ἔφην, ἴδιον σῶμα ὑπάρχον ὑπερέβη πάντα τὰ ἀνθρώπινα.]

[Μεταβολὴν δὲ τὴν εἰς τὴν τῆς θεότητος φύσιν οὐκ ἐνδέχεται παθεῖν σῶμα τὸ]

[ἀπὸ γῆς ἀμήχανον γάρ” ἐπεὶ καταγορεύομεν τῆς θεότητος, ὡς γενητῆς, καὶ]

[ὡς προσλαβούσης τὶ ἐν ἑαυτῇ, ὃ μή ἐστι κατὰ φύσιν ἴδιον αὐτῆς. Ἶσον γάρ]

[ἐστιν εἰς ἀτοπίας λόγον τὸ εἰπεῖν, ὅτι μετεβλήθη τὸ σῶμα εἰς θεότητος φύσιν,]

[καὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνο, ὅτι μετεβλήθη ὁ λόγος εἰς φύσιν σαρκὸς, τῷ λέγειν μετα-]

[κεχωρηκέναι τὴν θεότητα εἰς φύσιν σαρκός. “Qomep δὲ τοῦτο ἀμήχανον,]

[ἄτρεπτος γὰρ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτός ἐστιν, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἕτερον οὐ γάρ ἐστι τῶν]

[ἐφικτῶν εἰς θεότητος οὐσίαν ἤτοι φύσιν μεταχωρῆσαί τι δυνάσθαι τῶν κτι-]

[σμάτων κτίσμα δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ. οὐκοῦν θεῖον μὲν εἶναι φαμὲν τὸ σῶμα]

[τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ σῶμά ἐστι, καὶ ἀῤῥήτῳ δόξη κατηγλαϊσμένον,]

[ἄφθαρτον, ἅγιον, ζωοποιόν ὅτι δὲ εἰς θεότητος φύσιν μετεβλήθη, οὔτε τὶς]

[τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ἢ πεφρόνηκεν ἢ εἴρηκεν, οὔτε ἡμεῖς οὕτω διακείμεθα.---.]

[Cyrill. Epist. 1. ad Successum. Opp. Tom. v. Part. τ. pp. 139, 140,]

[Lutet. 1638.] [2 Δείξω δὲ ὅμως, kal pera τὴν ἀνάληψιν σῶμα καλούμενον τοῦ Δεσ-]

[πότου τὸ σῶμα. ἴἤΑκουσον τοίνυν τοῦ ἀποστόλου διδάσκοντος ἫἩμών γὰρ]

[τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρανοῖς ὑπάρχει, ἐξ οὗ καὶ σωτῆρα ἀπεκδεχόμεθα Κύριον]

[ἸΙησοῦν ὃς μετασχηματίσει τὸ σῶμα τῆς ταπεινώσεως ἡμῶν, εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι]

[αὐτὸ σύμμορφον τοῦ σώματος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. Οὐ τοίνυν εἰς ἑτέραν μετα-]

[βέβληται φύσιν, ἀλλὰ μεμένηκε σῶμα, θείας μέντοι δόξης πεπληρωμένον, καὶ]

[φωτὸς πέμπον ἀκτῖνας. Εἰ δὲ εἰς ἑτέραν ἐκεῖνο μετεβλήθη φύσιν, καὶ]

[τὰ τούτων (i. 6. τῶν ἁγίων) ὡσαύτως μεταβληθήσεται σύμμορφα γὰρ ἐκείνῳ]

[γενήσεται” εἰ δὲ τὰ τῶν ἁγίων φυλάττει τὴν χαρακτῆρα τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τὸ]

[δεσποτικὸν ἄρα ὡσαύτως τὴν οἰκείαν οὐσίαν ἀμετάβλητον ἔχει.----ΤΠοΔοχγού.]

[Dial. 11. pp. 83,84. Opp. Tom. 1v. Lutet. 1642.] 17—2]

void of a mind. Arius taught that the Son of God took flesh only without soul!, and that the Word was in place of the soul. And Apollinarius did attribute unto Christ a soul, but he took away the mind, denying that it was reasonable? The scripture doth both attribute unto Christ a soul, and taketh not away the mind from the soul. The Lord himself sayeth in the gospel: The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his soul a redemption for many.” Lhe same Matthew hath left written of him: “He began to be sorrowful and heavy. And Jesus said, My soul is heavy, even unto the death.” And in another place the Lord himself saith: ΝΟΥ͂ my soul is troubled.” And if so be that this soul of Christ lack the mind, which is the chiefest part of the soul, how hath he a soul? how could he be sorrowful, and underStand, desire, and remember? “With hearty desire (saith the Lord) have I desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.” But this desire came not from his Godhead, neither from his flesh only, nor from his soul wanting a mind, but from his perfect manhood of body and mind. Moreover ~~ Wwe read in the gospel that the Lord said: “The Son of Man came not to destroy men’s souls, but to save them.” Therefore he took not flesh only, but a reasonable soul also. For man had perished both soul and body: therefore that he might be saved both body and soul, our Saviour Christ took a very man’s body and a reasonable soul, that is to say, a most perfect man. Therefore blessed Athanasius, teaching us according to the scriptures the confession of true faith, said: “Christ 1s God of the substance of his Father, begotten before all worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world: perfect God, and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.”

Thus far in these words have we shewed that Jesus Christ truth our Lord is very God and very man; consubstantial or of of the same substance with the Father according to his Godhead, and consubstantial or of the same substance with us according to his manhood. For he hath a reasonable soul and human flesh in very deed. We will speak furthermore of the conjunction or uniting of these natures into one person; in which matter histories declare, that certain ancient writers in old

[1 without a soul, 1577.] [2 Augustin. Heweres. cap. 55.)

time foully erred. For Eutyches admitted one nature only in Christ, and the same made, that is, meddled or confounded together of a divine and human nature: from whom the Monothelites were not far beyond, acknowledging only one will in Christ. Nestorius, willing to avoid a coal-pit, fell into a lime-kiln. For he, confessing two natures, seemeth to affirm that there are so many persons, teaching that the Word is not united to the flesh into the selfsame person, but that it only dwelleth therein: whereupon also he forbad the holy virgin to be called God’s mother. Against whom the common assertion of the whole church, holding opinion according to the scripture, hath taught that two natures in Christ and the properties of those natures are to be confessed; which are so coupled together into one undivided person, that neither the divine nature is changed into the human, nor the human into the divine, but either of them retain or keep their own nature, and both of them subsist in the unity of person. For Christ? according to the disposition of his divine nature is one and the selfsame, immortal: according to the disposition of his human nature, mortal: and the selfsame immortal God and mortal man is the only Saviour of the world. Of which thing we will speak anon, by God’s grace, somewhat more largely and plainly.

Touching the very conjunction or uniting of the true Godhead and manhood in Christ, the prophets and apostles have not crabbedly nor craftily disputed. For they speaking simply said, “God was made man;” or, God took on him man. For John the apostle and evangelist saith: “The Word was made flesh,” that is, God was made man, or the Word of God became flesh. St Paul saith: “God was made - manifest in the flesh.” And again: “The Son of God in no sort took the angels, but he took the seed of Abraham.” Therefore we, according to the doctrine of the apostles, expounding the mystery of the conjunction of the divine and human nature in Christ, say: God was incarnate or made man; God took on him man; God appeared or was made manifest in human flesh. He that will sift out deeper matters than these, it is to cast himself into great dangers.

[3 illam carbonariam, Lat. See Vol. 1. p. 376. n. 1.]

[1 Rather, For one and the same Christ is according to, &c.]

[5 spinose, Lat.]

Some there are who, in expounding these points more fully, use the words of society or fellowship, participation, and communion, or part-taking; and that, not without authority ~~ of the scriptures; Paul saying, Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part with them.”

Nevertheless we must here first of all take heed, that we do not meddle or confound the two natures joined together in one person, nor that we rob them of their properties. For Grod of his own nature is everlasting and unchangeable. God therefore, remaining always one and the selfsame, is not changed into an human or into any other nature, but joineth, coupleth, taketh, yea, and uniteth unto himself the human nature. Again, unless in his human nature he remain a creature, and be the selfsame which he is said to be, it is not an human nature: this therefore remaining in its own substance is taken to the divine nature. Therefore two natures remain in the one person of Christ, the divine and the human; and either of them doth retain their own disposition and their own property: which we will now declare by some places of scripture.

Esay in his seventh chapter saith: “A virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son; and his name shall be called Immanuel.” He acknowledgeth both natures in Christ: for according to his divine nature he is called “Immanuel,” that is to say, “God with us;” according to his human nature he is conceived and born. The same prophet saith: “A child is born unto us, and a son is given unto us,” &c. For he is given who is from everlasting; and he is born whose beginning and being is in the world. Wherefore one and the selfsame retaineth both the divine and the human nature. For Micheas also saith: And thou, Beth-lehem Ephrata, art little indeed among the thousands of Judah. Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, which shall be the governor in Israel, whose outgoings have been from the beginning, and from everlasting.” Lo, what could be spoken mere plain? One and the selfsame hath two offsprings: for insomuch as he is God, his generation is from everlasting; and as he is man, he is born in Beth-lehem. Wherefore one and the selfsame Christ is very God and very man. Again in the gospel

[1 qui in seculo esse incipit, Lat

according to St Matthew, the Lord asketh the Pharisees, saying: “What think you of Christ? whose Son is he? They said unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand until 1 make thine enemies thy footstool? If David call him Lord, how is he then his Son?” As if he said: Since Christ without doubt is the Son of David, and he calleth him Lord (not by human affection, but by the Holy Ghost), that is to say, very God of the selfsame power with the Father, the sequel? is that Christ is very man and very God. The angel Gabriel, noting no less plainly both these natures, saith to the virgin Mary: “That holy thing which shall be born shall be called the Son of God.” For of the virgin he is born, very man of very man: and this is the Son of God. For Elisabeth also calleth the virgin the mother of the Lord; to wit, of God. Moreover, in the gospel of John thou mayest read very many sayings of this sort, which point out, as it were with the finger, both natures in the selfsame Christ. Ye believe,” saith the Lord, “in God, believe also in me.” And again, “The Father is greater than I.” Also, “1 went out from the Father, and came into the world: again I leave the world, and go to the Father.” And again in another place: “The poor shall ye have always with you, but me always ye shall not have.” And again: “Behold, I am always with you, even unto the end of the world.” Which sentences truly, as it were contrary, cannot be all true at once, unless we acknowledge that Christ retaineth the properties of (both) natures unconfounded or unmingled. Paul unto the Romans manifestly saith, that “he was called to - be an apostle to preach the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures, concerning his Son; which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared mightily to be the Son of God, touching the Spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection from the dead.” The apostle therefore acknowledgeth both natures in Christ: for according to the flesh (saith he) Christ is the Son of David; but if we behold the power of his miracles, his resurrection from the dead which giveth life, and that Christ sendeth the Holy Ghost and

[2 consequens est, Lat.; it follow

sanctifieth all the faithful, it appeareth that he which is the Son of David after the flesh is also the Son of God according to his divine power. The same apostle, in the second chapter to the Philippians, doth no less plainly and evidently affirm both natures in Christ. But because that place hath been already oftentimes alleged, I pass over to the citing of other. ὁ St Augustine, expounding not only the confession οὗ his own faith, but of the whole church in all the world which flourished in his time, in his epistle to Dardanus, vir hath thus left written: “Doubt not that the man Christ Jesus is there now, from whence he shall come; and have in ready remembrance and faithfully hold the christian confession: because he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, neither shall come from elsewhere than from thence, to judge the quick and the dead: and in such sort shall he come, that voice of the angel so witnessing, as he was seen to go into heaven; that is to say, in the selfsame shape and substance of flesh, to which indeed Le gave immortality, (but) took not the nature away. Aec-cording to this shape he is not to be thought everywhere present. For we must beware lest we so fortify the divinity of man, that we take clean away the truth of his body. For it doth not consequently follow, that that which is in God should be so! everywhere as God. For the scripture which cannot lie saith even of us, that in him we live, move, and have our being,” howbeit we are not everywhere as he is: but he is after another sort man in God, because he 15 also otherwise God in man, after a certain proper and singular manner. For one person is God and man, and both of them is one Jesus Christ; everywhere in that he is God, but in heaven in that he is man.” And the same author saith a little after: “Take away space of places from bodies, and they shall be nowhere: and because they shall be nowhere, they shall be no bodies. Take the very bodies from the qualities of the bodies, and there shall be no place for them to be, and therefore it must needs be that they have no being.” And in the end of the Epistle the same Augustine saith: “Doubt not that Christ our Lord, the only-begotten Son of God, co-equal with the Father, being also the Son

So also 1584: but 1577, should so be.]

of man, whom the Father excecedeth in greatness, both to be present everywhere as he is God, and also to be in the same temple of God as God dwelling there; and yet to be in some certain place of heaven according to the manner of his true body2” The selfsame thing the same author as yet expoundeth more at large in his fiftieth treatise upon John?; and Contra Felicianum Arianum, cap. 9, 10, and 114; also in his treatise De Agone Christi, cap. 24 unto cap. 275. To

[2 Noli itaque dubitare, ibi nunc esse hominem Christum Jesum]

[unde venturus est, memoriterque recole et fideliter tene Christianam]

[confessionem: quoniam resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in ccelum, sedet]

[ad dexteram Patris, nec aliunde quam inde venturus est ad vivos]

[mortuosque judicandos; et sic venturus est, illa angelica voce testante,]

[quemadmodum ire visus est in ccelum, id est, in eadem carnis forma]

[atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non]

[abstulit. Secundum hanc formam non est putandus ubique diffusus.]

[Cavendum est enim ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem]

[corporis auferamus. Non est autem consequens, ut quod in Deo est]

[ita sit ubique nt Deus. Nam et de nobis verissima secriptura dicit,]

[quod in illo vivimus, movemur, et sumus; nec tamen sicut ille ubique]

[sumus: sed aliter homo ille in Deo, quoniam aliter et Deus ille in]

[homine, proprio quodam et singulari modo. Una enim persona Deus]

[et homo est, et utrumque est unus Christus Jesus: ubique, per id quod]

[Deus est; in ccelo autem per id quod homo. Nam spatia locorum]

[tolle corporibus, nusquam erunt: et quia nusquam erunt, nec erunt.]

[Tolle ipsa corpora qualitatibus corporum, non erit ubi sint, et ideo]

[necesse est ut non sint… Christum autem Dominum nostrum, unigeni-]

[tum Dei Filium,;equalem Patri, eundemque hominis filium, quo major]

[est Pater, et ubique totum praesentem esse non dubites tanquam Deum,]

[et in eodem templo Dei esse tanquam inhabitantem Deum, et in loco]

[aliquo cceli propter veri corporis modum.—Augustin. ad Dardan. Ep.]

[LviL. Opp. Tom. τι. fol. 53. col. 3. fol. 54. col. 2. fol. 56. col. 1. Par,]

[,. 1531] [3 Secundum preesentiam majestatis semper habemus Christum; se-]

[cundum presentiam carnis, recte dictum est discipulis, Me autem non]

[semper habebitis.—Id. Tom. 1x. fol. 76. col. 3.] [4 Fel. Scire cupio quo pacto ad filium transeat dignitas patris, et]

[ad patrem non recurrat humilitas prolis? Aug. Non secundum natu-]

[ram ista nunc dici, quotidianarum rerum exempla nos docent, &c.—]

[Id. Tom. νι. fol. 160. col. 3.—This treatise is not gennine.] [> Nec eos audiamus qui negant tale corpus Domini resurrexisse,]

[quale positum est in monumento, &c.. 24. Nec eos audiamus qui]

[negant ipsum corpus secum levasse in ccelum Dominum nostrum, ὅσο.]

[c. 25. Nec eos audiamus qui negant ad dextram Patris sedere Filium,]

[ὅσο.. 26.—Id. Tom. 111. fol. 164. col. 2. P.]]

which we will also join the testimony of the holy martyr Vigilius, bishop of Trident. For he, disputing against Eutyches in the defence of both natures in Christ, saith: “If the nature of the Word and flesh be one, how is it that since the Word is everywhere, the flesh also is not found everywhere? For when the flesh was in earth, surely it was not in heaven; and because it is now in heaven, surely it is not in earth: and so far is it from being in the earth, that according to flesh we do look for Christ to come from heaven, whom according to the Word we believe to be with us on earth. Therefore, according to your opinion, either the Word is contained with his flesh in place, or else the flesh with the Word is in every place: whereas one nature receiveth not into itself anything contrary and unlike. But it is contrary and far unlike to be limited within a place, and to be everywhere: and because the Word is in every place, but his flesh is not in every place, it is evident that one and the selfsame Christ is of both natures; and that he is everywhere according to the nature of his Godhead, and is contained in place according to the nature of his manhood; that he is both created, and also without beginning; that he is subject to death, and also cannot die; one of which is agreeable to him by the nature of the Word, whereby he is God; the other by the nature of the flesh, whereby the selfsame God is man. Therefore one and the selfsame Son of God, being also made the Son of man, hath a beginning by the nature of the flesh, and hath no beginning by the nature of his divinity: by the nature of his flesh he is created, and by the nature of his divinity he is not created: by the nature of his flesh he is limited in place, and by the nature of his divinity he is not contained in place: by the nature of his flesh he is inferior also to angels, and according to his divinity he is equal to the Father: by the nature of his flesh he died, but by the nature of his divinity he died not. This is the catholic faith and christian confession, which the apostles delivered, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful even unto this day do observe and keep!.” Hitherto we have rehearsed

[1 Si Verbiet carnis una natura est, quomodo cum Verbum ubique]

[sit, non ubique inveniatur et caro? Nam quando in terra fuit, non]

[erat utique in ceelo: et nunc quia in ceelo est, ion est utique in terra;]

[et in tantum non est, ut secundum ipsum Christum spectemus ven-]

the words of Vigilius, martyr and bishop, to this end, that the most notable agreement of the holy scripture, of the universal church, and of the most godly and learned fathers in this principle might be understood, wherein we confess that the properties of both natures in Christ remain unconfounded.

Again, we must by all means take heed, lest through defending and retaining the properties of the two natures we divide and pull asunder the unity of the person; as though there were two Christs, whereof the one should be subject to suffering and mortal, the other not subject to suffering and immortal. For there is but one and the same Christ, who according to his Godhead is acknowledged immortal, and mortal according to his manhood. Nestorius denied that the blessed virgin Mary was the mother of God; for he said God was unchangeable, and therefore that he could not be born, and that he had no mother. Whereupon sprang a suspicion, that he should say the Lord was bare man, and that he should maintain the heretical opinion of Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus: which thing Socrates handleth at large, Historiarwm Lib. vii. cap. 322. But Nestorius was

[turum de ccelo, quem secundum Verbum nobiscum esse eredimus in]

[terra. Igitur secundum vos aut Verbum cum carne sua loco conti-]

[netur, aut caro cum Verbo ubique est, quando una natura contrarium]

[quid et diversum non recipit in seipsa. Diversum est autem et longe]

[dissimile circumseribi loco et ubique esse; et quia Verbum ubique est,]

[caro autem ejus ubique non est, apparet unum eundemque Christum]

[utriusque esse nature; et esse quidem ubique secundum naturam di-]

[vinitatis suse, et loco contineri secundum naturam humanitatis suse;]

[creatum esse, et initium non habere; morti subjacere, et mori non]

[posse: quod unum illi est ex natura Verbi, qua Deus est; aliud ex]

[natura carnis, qua idem Deus homo est. Igitur unus Dei Filius idemque]

[- hominis factus filius habet initium ex natura carnis suze, et non habet]

[initium ex natura divinitatis suse; creatus est per naturam carnis sue,]

[et non est creatus per naturam divinitatis sue; circumscribitur loco]

[per naturam carnis sue, et loco non capitur per naturam divinitatis]

[sue; minor est etiam angelis per naturam carnis sus, et equalis est]

[Patri secundum naturam divinitatis suse; mortuus est natura carnis]

[sug, et non est mortuus natura divinitatis sue. Heec est fides et con-]

[fessio catholica, quam apostoli tradiderunt, martyres roboraverunt, et]

[fideles nunc usque custodiunt.—Vigilii contra Eutychen. Lib. 1v. fol.]

[73 Tigur. 1539.] [3 Socratis Hist. Eccles. Lib. vir. cap. 32. De Anastasio presby-]

[tero, a quo Nestorius ad impietatem perductus est. ed. Cantab. pp.]

[380 381.]]

injurious to the scripture and to true faith. For Elisabeth, the wife of Zachary and the mother of St John Baptist, being full of the Holy Ghost, in express words saluteth the holy virgin Mary, and calleth her the mother of the Lord, that is, the mother of God. And albeit his heavenly nature be without generation and corruption, yet notwithstanding it is most certain that he whom Mary brought forth was God in very deed. For “that which is born of her,” saith the angel, “is the Son of God:” therefore she brought forth God, and she worthily is called the mother of God. For if she bare not God, she brought forth bare man, neither hath the Son of God coupled man unseparably to himself. In like manner, since God of his own nature is immortal, truly he cannot die: but if any man for that cause should absolutely deny that God was crucified and offered, yea, and died for us, he should gainsay Paul saying, “Had they known it!, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” But who is ignorant that the God of glory, or glorious God, cannot be crucified? In the meanwhile, since he which according to the flesh suffered and was nailed on the cross was God, not bare man only, we rightly say that God suffered and was nailed on the cross for us; though he which suffered suffered according to that only 1] which could suffer. For Peter the apostle saith, Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh.” The first Toletan council following him decreed in these words: If any shall say or believe that the Godhead may be born, let him be accursed. If any shall say or believe that the deity of Christ may be turned, changed, or subject to suffering, let him be accursed. If any shall say or believe that the nature of the Godhead and the manhood is one in Christ, let him be accursed?” And Damasus bishop of Rome saith: “If any shall say, that in suffering on the cross the Son of God and God suffered pain, and not the flesh with the soul which he put on in the form

[(! ipsum, Lat.; him.] [2 Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Deitatem nascibilem esse: ana-]

[thema sit. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit Deitatem Christi convertibilem]

[fuisse, vel passibilem: anathema sit. Si quis dixerit vel crediderit]

[Deitatis et carnis unam in Christo esse naturam: anathema sit.—As-]

[sertio Fidei Coneil. Toletan. 1. Magd. Centur. Cent. v. cap. 9. foll. 467,]

[468 Basil. 1624. The first of these three determinations is not found,]

[and the second is given somewhat differently, in Concil. Labb. et Coss.]

[Tom. 11. col. 1228.]]

of a servant, which he took on him as the scripture saith, let him be accursed.” Therefore, whereas Paul saith, that “God hath purchased to himself a church with his own Actsxx. blood,” who is so mad to believe that the divine nature hath or ever had blood? In the meanwhile who is such a dorhead? that he understandeth not, that the flesh which God took hath blood? And since that God accounteth not that as another’s, but his own, which he took unto himself; we most truly say, that God with his own blood redeemed the world. Whereupon Theodoretus also, bishop of Cyrus, Dialog. Eran. 3, a little before the end, saith: “If Christ be both God and man, as both the holy scripture teacheth, and as the most blessed fathers have always preached, then as man he suffered, but as God he was not subject to suffering. But when we say the body, or flesh, or humanity suffered, we do not separate the divine nature: for as it was united to his human nature, which was hungry and thirsty, and weary, yea, and slept also, yea, and was vexed with sorrow and heaviness for the passion which he should suffer, abiding indeed none of those, but suffering that to abide the affections and passions of nature; even so it was joined unto him when he was crucified, and permitted that his passion should be throughly ended, that by his passion he might suffer death, not feeling grief truly by his passion, but making his passion agreeable and convenient for himself as the passion of his temple or dwelling-place and of his flesh joined unto him; by the which also they that believe are called the members of Christ: he himself is called the head of those that believe?” Thus far he.

[3 El mis εἴπῃ, ὅτι ἐν τῷ πάθει τοῦ σταυροῦ τὴν ὀδύνην ὑπέμεινεν ὁ Yids]

[τοῦ Θεοῦ θεότητι, καὶ οὐχὶ σαρκὶ καὶ ψυχῇ λογικῇ. ἥνπερ ἀνέλαβεν ἐν τῇ]

[τοῦ δούλου μορφῇ, ὡς εἴρηκεν ἡ ἁγία γραφὴ, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.----Τγατπαβὶ Opp.]

[Epist. ad Paulin. Thessalon. Episc. p. 116. Rome, 1638.] [1 tam stupidus, Lat.; dor, a drone. Johnson. ] [5 Εἰ ὁ Χριστὸς καὶ Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος, ws καὶ ἡ θεία διδάσκει γραφὴ,]

[καὶ οἱ πανεύφημοι πατέρες κηρύττοντες διετέλεσαν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἄρα πέπον-]

[θεν, ὡς δὲ Θεὸς διέμενεν ἀπαθής. Ὅταν τὸ σῶμα, ἢ τὴν σάρκα, ἢ τὴν]

[ἀνθρωπότητα πεπονθέναι λέγωμεν, τὴν θείαν οὐ χωρίζομεν φύσιν ὥσπερ]

[γὰρ ἥνωτο πεινώσῃ καὶ διψώσῃ καὶ κοπιώσῃ, καὶ μέντοι καὶ καθευδούσῃ, καὶ]

[ἀγωνιώσῃ τὸ πάθος, οὐδὲν μὲν τούτων ὑφισταμένη, συγχωροῦσα δὲ ταύτῃ]

[δέχεσθαι τὰ τῆς φύσεως πάθη” οὕτω συνῆπτο καὶ σταυρουμένῃ, καὶ συνε-]

This figure of speech is called of some ἀλλοίωσις, alteration OF changing; of John! Damascenus ἀντίδοσις, mutual giving or an interchanging of properties. That is wont to be called a communicating of properties?, to wit, when that property is given to one nature which is proper to another: as for example; “No man hath ascended up into heaven (saith the Lord) but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Truly, his human nature was not then in heaven, when the Lord spake this, but in earth: yet notwithstanding, because flesh is taken into the fellowship of his Godhead, that which is proper to this is attributed to his manhood. And bishop Fulgentius, making mention of? this interpretation, in his second book to king Thrasimundus hath thus left written: “He said this, not that the human substance of Christ is present in every place; but because one and the selfsame Son of God and Son of man, very God of the Father as he is very man of man, though according to his true humanity he was then locally in earth, yet according to his divinity (which by no means can be contained in place) he did wholly fill heaven and earth” Thus saith he. Wherefore the sentences, bearing witness of Christ in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, are diligently to be marked. For some are peculiarly referred to his divine nature, as are these: “1 and the Father are one.” Before Abraham was, I am.” “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was that Word.” “He is before all things, the image of the invisible God, by whom all things are χώρει τελεσιουργηθῆναι τὸ πάθος, ἵνα λύσῃ τῷ πάθει Tov θάνατον, ὀδύνην μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πάθους οὐ δεχομένη, τὸ δὲ πάθος οἰκειωσαμένη, ὡς ναοῦ γε ἰδίου, καὶ σαρκὸς ἡνωμένης, OU ἣν καὶ μέλη Χριστοῦ χρηματίζουσιν οἱ πιστεύσαντες, καὶ τῶν πεπιστευκότων αὐτὸς ὠνόμασται κεφαλή.----Ποοαογοί. Demonstrat. per Syllog. Opp. Tom. 1v. p. 186. Lutet. Par. 1642—84.]

[1 Joan. Damascen. Orthodox: Fid. Lib. m1. cap. 3. p. 174. Bas. 1575.)

[2 idiomatum communicatio, Lat.]

[3 agnoscens, Lat.; recognising. ]

[+ —Non quia humana Christi substantia fuisset ubique diffusa, sed quoniam unus idemque Dei filius atque hominis filius, verus Deus ex Patre sicut homo verus ex homine, licet secundum veram humanitatem suam localiter tune esset in terra, secundum divinitatem tamen, que loco nullatenus continetur, cecelum totus impleret et terram,—Fulgent. ad Trasimund. Lib. 11. cap. 17. p. 50. Venet. 1742.]

made.” And some are particularly referred to his human nature, or to the mystery of his embassage or ministration: of which sort are these: The Father is greater than I.” “Thou madest him alittle inferior to the angels.” My soul is heavy even to the death.” Again, there are testimonies which have respect to both natures, but to neither of them severally do they sufficiently agree. Such are these: My flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” “1 have power to forgive sins, to raise to life whom I will, and to give righteousness and holiness. I am the shepherd, the door, the light, the way, the truth, and the life.” No man cometh to the Father but by me.” For these do set forth and commend unto us the very substance of Christ, the person I mean of our true Saviour and Mediator, God and man. For no man forgiveth sins but God only. Again, they are not forgiven without death and shedding of blood, as the apostle witnesseth in the ninth chapter to the Hebrews. Again, there are testimonies, which cannot aptly be declared but by communicating of words, Touching which I hope this is sufficient.

Again, he doth not divide the person of our Mediator, God and man, whosoever for the unity’s sake of natures doth not so far extend his humanity as his divinity is? extended. For in the gospel after St Matthew, the Lord goeth not with his body into the house of the centurion; whereas yet notwithstanding there is no doubt that, his Godhead being present and not absent, the servant of the centurion was cured of this disease. And who will say that therefore the person is divided by St Matthew, for that he hath not extended the humanity of Christ even unto his divinity? The angels, speaking to the women concerning the body of Christ risen from the dead and now glorified, say: He is not here, he is risen.” But we are not ignorant that his divinity is in every place. And yet the angels divided not his inseparable person, in that they did not make equal in all respects the human body of Christ with his Godhead. The angels themselves do not divide the person of Christ, when, his body being taken up from the mount Olivet into heaven, they standing on the earth testify that he shall come again after the same manner as they saw

[5 sive ad missionem, dispensationisque mysterium, Lat.] [6 idiomatum, Lat.) [7 ut sic dicam, Lat. omitted; so to say.] [8 Illi ipsi angeli, Lat.]]

l 272 THE FOURTH DECADE. [sErRM. him depart from them. But who dare deny that the Lord was then also present with them? Therefore our Lord after the manner of his very body is in heaven not in earth: but according to his infinite Godhead he is everywhere, in heaven and in earth. Man consisteth of soul and body; and these most contrary in natures between themselves make one person, not two; and whosoever attributeth and defendeth that which is proper to either of them, doth not divide the person. The body sleepeth, the soul sleepeth not: these properties of parts make not two persons. Hereunto seemeth to belong that which Theodoret hath left written in his third Dialogue, saying: “We do not divide the natural unity of the soul and the body, neither separate we the souls from their own proper bodies: but consider those things which properly belong to their natures. Therefore when the scripture saith, And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him;” wilt thou say that his soul was buried with his body? 1 think not. And when thou shalt hear Jacob the patriarch saying, Bury ye me with my fathers,’ thou dost understand that to be spoken of his body, not of his soul. Again thou dost read, There they buried Abraham and Sara his wife,” &c. In which speech the scripture doth not make mention of the body, but in all points signifieth the soul and body together. But we rightly divide and say, that the souls are immortal, and that the bodies only of the patriarchs are buried in the double cave. Even so we also are wont to say, In this or that place this or that man was buried. We do not say, this man’s body, or that man’s body, but this man or that man; for whosoever is well in his wits knoweth we speak of the body. So whereas the evangelists so oftentimes make mention of Christ’s body buried, at the length they set down the name of the person and say, that Jesus was buried and laid in the gravel,” &c. Thus far Theodoret.

[1 ᾽Ορθ. οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς, ὦ ἀγαθὲ, διαιροῦμεν τὴν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλὰ θεωροῦμεν τὰ τῶν φύσεων ἴδια. Ὅταν οὖν ἡ θεία λέγῃ γραφὴ, Συνεκόμισαν δὲ τὸν Στέφανον ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, καὶ ἐποίησαν κοπετὸν μέγαν ἐπ αὐτῷ, καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν εἴποι ἄν τις μετὰ τοῦ σώματος παραδεδόσθαι ταφῇ; Ἔραν. Οὐ δῆτα. ᾽ρθ. Καὶ ὅταν ἀκούσῃς ᾿Ιακὼβ τοῦ πατριάρχου λέγοντος, Θάψατέ με μετὰ τῶν πατέρων μου, περὶ σώματος ἢ περὶ ψυχῆς ταῦτα εἰρῆσθαι τοπάζεις; Ἔραν. Δῆλον ὡς περὶ σώματος. Ὃρθ. Ἀνάγνωθι δὲ καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ἔραν. Ἐκεῖ ἔθαψαν Ἀβραὰμ, καὶ Σάῤῥαν τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ. ρθ. Οὐδ᾽ ἐν τούτοις.

And since it is without controversy, that this faith and doctrine from Christ’s time even unto our age hath flourished in the holy church of God, and against innumerable assaults of Satan and heretics hath remained most stedfast; and the selfsame is delivered and confirmed by testimonies of scripture and consents? of holy councils; I exhort you, dearly beloved, that, calling on the name of Christ, you may persevere and continue in the same doctrine, and being joined by true faith and obedience to Christ, very God and man, you may give continual thanks, worshipping him that reigneth for ever.

Of Christ, King and Priest; Of His Only And

EVERLASTING KINGDOM AND PRIESTHOOD;

And of the Name of a Christian. The Seventh Sermon

---

← 49. Decade 4, Sermon 5, Part 2 · Contents · 51. Decade 4, Sermon 7 →