← Back to the beginning of V.53. That by the union of the one with the other nature in Christ there groweth neither gain nor loss of essential properties to either.

Which rule must serve for the better understanding of that which Damascene6 hath touching cross and circulatory speeches, wherein there are attributed to God such things as belong to manhood, and to man such as properly concern the Deity of Christ Jesus, the cause whereof is the association of natures in one subject. A kind of mutual commutation there is whereby those concrete names, God and Man, when we speak of Christ, do take interchangeably one another’s room, so that for truth of speech it skilleth not whether we say that the Son of God hath created the world, and the Son of Man by his death hath saved it, or else that the Son of Man did create, and the Son of God die to save the world. Howbeit, as oft as we attribute to God what the manhood of Christ claimeth, or to man what his Deity hath right unto, we understand by the name of God and the name of Man neither the one nor the other nature, but the whole person of Christ, in whom both natures are. When the Apostle saith of the Jews that they crucified the Lord of Glory, and when the Son of Man being on earth affirmeth that the Son of Man was in heaven at the same instant, there is in these two speeches that mutual circulation before-mentioned7. In the one, there is attributed to God or the 8Lord of Glory death, whereof divine nature is not capable; in the other ubiquity unto 9man, which human nature admitteth not. Therefore by the Lord of Glory we must needs understand the whole person of Christ, who being Lord of Glory, was indeed crucified, but not in that nature for which he is termed the Lord of Glory. In like manner by the Son of Man the whole person of Christ must necessarily be meant, who being man upon earth, filled heaven with his glorious presence, but not according to that nature for which the title of Man is given him.

Without this caution the Fathers whose belief was sincere and their meaning most sound, shall seem in their writings one to deny what another constantly doth affirm. Theodoret disputeth with great earnestness that God cannot be said to suffer10. But he thereby meaneth Christ’s divine nature against11 Apollinarius, which held even Deity itself passible, Cyril on the other side against Nestorius as much contendeth, that whosoever will deny very God to have suffered death12, doth forsake the faith. Which notwithstanding to hold were heresy, if the name of God in this assertion did not import as it doth the person of Christ, who being verily God suffered death, but in the flesh, and not in that substance for which the name of God is given him.

← The misinterpretations which heresy hath mad · Contents · What Christ hath obtained according to the f →

Footnotes

  1. [Εἰ μηδὲν εἰλήϕει παρὰ τη̑ς Μαρίας, οὐκ αὐτὰς ἀπὸ γη̑ς εἰλημμένας προσίετο τροϕὰς, δι’ ὠ̑ν τὸ ἀπὸ γη̑ς ληϕθὲν τρέϕεται σω̑μα· οὐδ’ ἂν εἰς τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, ὁμοίως ὡς Μωϋση̑ς καὶ Ἠλίας, νηστεύσας ἐπείνησε, του̑ σώματος έπιζητου̑ντος τὴν ἰδίαν τροϕήν· οὐδ’ ἂν Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς αὐτου̑ περὶ αὐτου̑ γράϕων εἰρήκει· Ὁ δὲ Ἰησου̑ς κεκοπιακὼς ἐκ τη̑ς ὁδοιπορίας, ἐκαθέζετο· … οὐδ’ ἂν ἐδάκρυσεν ἐπὶ του̑ Λαζάρου, οὐδ’ ἂν ἵδρωσε θρόμβους αἵματος· οὐδ’ ἂν εἰρήκει, ὅτι περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου· οὐδ’ ἂν νυγείσης αὐτου̑ τη̑ς πλευρα̑ς, ἐξη̑λθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ.] Ταυ̑τα [γὰρ] πάντα σύμβολα σαρκὸς τη̑ς ἀπὸ γη̑ς εἰλημμένης. Iren. lib. iii. advers. Hæres. [c. 32.] Christ did all these ἀνθρωπίνου σώματος νόμῳ. Theod. Dial. Ἀσύγχυτος. [iv. 1. 148. from Greg. Naz. Orat. xxxviii. t. i. 621. D. Ἀπεστάλη μὲν, ἀλλ’ ὡς ἄνθρωπος· διπλου̑ς γὰρ ἠ̑ν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐκοπίασε, καὶ ἐπείνησε, καὶ ἐδίψησε, καὶ ἠγωνίασε, καὶ ἐδάκρυσε νόμῳ σώματος.]Τοὺς μὲν ταπεινοὺς λόγους τῳ̑ ἐκ Μαρίας ἀνθρώπῳ, τοὺς δὲ ἀνηγμένους καὶ θεοπρεπει̑ς τῳ̑ ἐν ἀρχῃ̑ ὄντι Λόγῳ. Greg. Naz. Orat. II. de Filio. [§ 36. t. i. 577.] ↩

  2. Greg. Nyss. Epist. ad Theophil. Alexandr. [contr. Apollin. t. ii. 697. Paris. 1615. πα̑ν ὄσον ἀσθενὲς τη̑ς ϕυσέως ἡμω̑ν καὶ ἐπίκηρον, ἀνακραθὲν τῃ̑ Θεότητι, ἐκει̑νο ἐγένετο, ὅπερ ἡ Θεότης ἐστί … ἡ δὲ προσληϕθει̑σα τη̑ς ἀνθρωπίνης ϕύσεως ἀπαρχὴ ὑπὸ τη̑ς παντοδυνάμου Θεότητος, ὡς ἂν εἴποι τις εἰκόνι χρώμενος, οἷόν τις σταγὼν ὄξους ἀπείρῳ πελάγει κατακραθει̑σα, ἔστι μὲν ἐν Θεότητι, οὐ μὴν ἐν τοι̑ς ἰδίοις αὐτη̑ς ἰδιώμασιν· … ἐν οὐδενὶ καταλαμβάνεται ἡ διαϕορά· ὅπερ γὰρ ἄν τις ἴδοι του̑ υἱου̑, Θεότης ἐστὶ …] ↩

  3. Hilar. de Trin. lib. ix. [§ 3. p. 148. ed. Paris. 1605. “Mediator ipse in se ad salutem Ecclesiæ constitutus, et illo ipso inter Deum et hominem mediatoris sacramento utrumque unus existens, dum ipse ex unitis in idipsum naturis, naturæ utriusque res eadem est, ita tamen ut neutro careret in utroque, ne forte Deus esse homo nascendo desineret, et homo rursum Deus manendo non esset. Hæc itaque humanæ beatitudinis fides vera est, Deum et hominem prædicare, Verbum et carnem confiteri.”] ↩

  4. Cyr. Epist. ad Nest. [ad Succensum. Epist. p. 137. D. t. v. pars ii. ed. 1638. Ὁρω̑μεν ὅτι δύο ϕύσεις συνη̑λθον ἀλλήλαις καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἀσυγχύτως, καὶ ἀτρέπτως· ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ σάρξ ἐστι, καὶ οὐ θεότης, εἰ καὶ γέγονε Θεου̑ σάρξ.] ↩

  5. “Salva proprietate utriusque naturæ suscepta est a majestate humilitas, a virtute infirmitas, ab æternitate mortalitas.” Leo Ep. ad Flav. [c. 3.] ↩

  6. Οὑ̑τός ἐστιν ὁ τρόπος τη̑ς ἀντιδόσεως, ἑκατέρας ϕύσεως ἀντιδιδούσης τῃ̑ ἑτέρᾳ τὰ ἴδια, διὰ τὴν τη̑ς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα, καὶ τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα αὐτω̑ν περιχώρησιν. Damasc. de Orthod. Fid. lib. iii. c. 4. Verum est duarum in Christo naturarum alteram suas alteri proprietates impertire, enunciando videlicet, idque non in abstracto sed in concreto solum, divinas homini non humanitati, humanas non deitati sed Deo tribui. Cujus hæc est ratio, quia cum suppositum prædicationis sit ejusmodi ut utramque naturam in se contineat, sive ab una sive ab altera denominetur nihil refert. ↩

  7. [S. Aug. Ep. 187. 9. t. ii. 680. F, G.] ↩

  8. 1 Cor. ii. 8. ↩

  9. John iii. 13. ↩

  10. [Reprehens. Capitum Cyrilli, N°. xii. t. v. pars i. p. 65, ed. Schulze. Τὰ πάθη, του̑ παθητου̑, ἴδια. ὁ γὰρ ἀπαθὴς, παθω̑ν ἐστὶν ὑψηλότερος. and N°. x. p. 52. Τίς τοίνυν ὁ πόνοις ἀρετη̑ς τελειωθεὶς, καὶ μὴ ϕύσει τέλειος ὑπάρχων; τίς ὁ πείρᾳ μαθὼν τὴν ὑπακοὴν, καὶ ταύτην ἀγνοω̑ν πρὸ τη̑ς πείρας; τίς ὁ εὐλαβείᾳ συμβίωσας, καὶ μετὰ κραυγη̑ς ἰσχυρα̑ς καὶ δακρύων τὰς ἱκετείας προσενεγκὼν, καὶ σώζειν ἑαυτὸν οὐ δυνάμενος, ἀλλὰ τὸν δυνάμενον σώζειν προκαλω̑ν, καὶ του̑ θανάτου τὴν ἀπαλλαγὴν αἰτω̑ν; οὐχ ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος, ὁ ἀπαθὴς, ὁ ἀθάνατος, ὁ ἀσώματος, κ.τ.λ.] ↩

  11. Θνητὴν του̑ Υἱου̑ κατασκευάζουσι τὴν Θεότητα. Greg. Nyss. de Sectator. Apollinar. [Opp. t. iii. 262. A. Paris. 1638; et Leo.] Ep. ad Flavian. [c. 3.] ↩

  12. [Ap. Theod. ibid. p. 64. (Cyril’s 12th Anathema, exhibited at the council of Ephesus.) Εἴ τις οὐχ ὁμολογει̑, τὸν του̑ Θεου̑ λόγον παθόντα σαρκὶ, καὶ ἐσταυρωμένον σαρκὶ, καὶ θανάτου γευσάμενον σαρκὶ, γεγονότα τε πρωτότοκον ἐκ νεκρω̑ν, καθὸ ζωή ἐστι, καὶ ζωοποιὸς, ὡς Θεὸς, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. And p. 67. οὐκου̑ν λεγέσθω πάντα αὐτου̑, καὶ ὁμολογείσθω σωτὴρ ὁ του̑ Θεου̑ λόγος, μεμενηκὼς μὲν ἀπαθὴς τῃ̑ τη̑ς Θεότητος ϕύσει, σαρκὶ δὲ παθὼν, ὡς εἰ̑πεν ὁ Πέτρος. αὐτου̑ γὰρ ἠ̑ν ἴδιον καθ’ ἕνωσιν ἀληθη̑ τὸ του̑ θανάτου γευσάμενον σω̑μα· ἐπεὶ… εἰς τὸν τίνος θάνατον βεβαπτίσμεθα; … . ᾐ̑ρ’ οὐ̑ν εἰς θάνατον ἀνθρώπου κοινου̑ βεβαπτίσμεθα, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν πιστεύοντες δικαιούμεθα; ἢ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀληθὲς, ἐνανθρωπήσαντος ΘΕΟΥ, καὶ ΠΑΘΟΝΤΟΣ ὑπὲρ ἡμω̑ν σαρκὶ, τὸν ΘΑΝΑΤΟΝ καταγγέλλομεν; Melito of Sardis, about ad 150, wrote, ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξια̑ς Ἰσραηλίτιδος. Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, i. 116.] ↩

← Back to the beginning of V.53. That by the union of the one with the other nature in Christ there groweth neither gain nor loss of essential properties to either.