{"number":118,"title":"THE COMMON PLACE OF THE TWO NATVRES IN CHRIST","part":"THE SECOND PART, OF MANS DELIVERIE","questions":[35,36,47,48],"paragraphs":[],"clauses":[],"items":[],"text":"The Questions here to be obserued.\n\n1 *Whether there be two natures in the Mediatour.*\\\n2 *Whether they be one, or two persons.*\\\n3 *If they be one person, what maner of vnion that is of them, and how made.*\\\n4 *Why this personall vnion was necessarie to be made.*\n\n## 1 WHETHER THERE BE TWO NATVRES IN CHRIST OVR MEDIATOVR\n\n[^1] *WHAT there are two natures in Christ,* this one reason doth shewe by good demonstrance: *Essentiall properties, which are opposite, cānot be in the same, nor be affirmed of the same thing, in respect of the same nature or cause.* Vigilius, lib. 4. *One nature dooth not receiue in it selfe a thing contrarie & diuerse.* But *in one and the same Christ are, & are affirmed of him, properties diuerse & contrarie, diuine and humane, finite infinite, passible impassible, and such like: Therefore there must needes be diuerse natures in him, humane and diuine.* And that the very diuine nature, creatresse of all thinges, is in Christ,[^2] hath bin alreadie proued. It remaineth that we shew, *a true humane nature to be in him, & that such as ours is, and perfect, consisting of a bodie, and a reasonable soule, of which as of essentiall parts is made a third substance, to wit, this particular humanitie, which the Word hauing taken once into the vnity of person, doth neuer laie awaie againe.* Which we are to holde against heretickes both oulde and newe, whereof some *deny Christes fleshe to haue bin formed of the Virgins substance, but will haue it brought down from Heauen into the Virgin, or begotten in her of the substance of the holy Ghost.* Others *fancie, Christ to haue, in steede of true fleshe the likenesse, semblance, and appearancie of a mans bodie.* Others *acknowledge indeede, that hee hath a true bodie, but not a humane soule, the roome whereof is supplied by the Woord vnited vnto the body.*\n\nAgainst these & the like errors, the sentence & doctrine of the church is confirmed. First, *by plaine places of scripture,* which testify, *christ Maries son, to haue bin made like vnto vs in al things, that is, in essence, in properties, in infirmities, sin only excepted.* Lu. 1.31. *Loe, thou shalt cōceiue in thy womb & bear a son.* Seeing then the Virgine conceiued this her sonne in her womb, bare it vntil the vsual time of deliuery, and was deliuered of it, as other weomen vse to bee of their children: it followeth, that his flesh was not brought from heauen, or elsewhere taken, which should but passe only through the womb of the Virgin: but was formed in the Virgins womb, of her seed & substance. *Heb.* 2.11. *He that sanctifieth, and they which are sanctified, are al of one: wherfore he is not ashamed to cal thē Bretheren.* And a litle after: *For asmuch as the children were partakers of the flesh and blood, he also himselfe likewise took part with them:* Again, *In al things it became him to be like to his brethren.* Therfore he hath a humane nature of the same kind wholy with ours. Heereof hee is called *the fruite of Maries womb.* Luk. 1.42. *the first begotten son of Mary,* Luk. 2.7. *made of a woman,* Gal. 4.4. *The seed of Abraham,* Gal. 3.16. Heb. 2.16. *made of the seede of Dauid,* Rom. 1.3. *Borne of the Jewes, concerning the flesh,* Rom. 9.5. & euery where, *the son of Abraham, of Dauid,* and *the son of man:* And also *Luk.* 3. his petigree & stock, concerning the fleshe, is deduced vnto Adam. Therefore hee was begotten of the substance of his mother Mary, and issued from the same seede of Adam, from which we did. *Luk.* 24.39. Christ prooueth himselfe to be a true man, and not a spirite, by this, that *a spirite hath not fleshe and bones, as hee hath and reteineth,* euen after his resurrection. Apollinaris the hereticke saide, *that Christes bodie indeede was a true bodie; but insteede of a soule he had the Woorde onlie.* But this man is easilie refuted, because Christ should not then haue bin like vnto his brethren in al thinges, except sinne. And Christ himselfe doth plainly confesse, *My soule is verie heauy euen vnto the death,* Mat. 26.38. And, Luk 2.52. he is said *to haue encreased in wisedome, and stature, and in fauour with God and men.* And Iohn 10.18. *To laie downe his soule, and to take it againe.* But to encrease in wisedome, and to bee heauy and sad doe neither agree vnto a bodie, which is reasonlesse: neither vnto the god-head which is not obnoxious to changes and passions. Hither belongeth also that, *Luk.* 23.46. *Father, into thine handes I commend my spirit. And when hee thus had said, He gaue vp the Ghost.* This cannot bee saide of christs godhead. For that being immense & infinit is euery where, nether doth a remouing from one place to another agree vnto it; it is not laid downe, and taken vp again, that is, it neuer departed or was seuered from the body, but remaineth alwaies vnited vnto it. Wherefore there must needs be in Christ, besides his body & his Godhead, a true humane soule, which did truely suffer and abide in Christ these chaunges and the like.\n\nSecondly, it is confirmed by diuine promises and prophecies. *For the Messias in the old Testament was promised to be such a one, as should be the seede of the woman, of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, &c. But this Jesus, the Sonne of the Virgine Mary, is that promised Messias. Therefore he must needs bee true man, issuing of the bloode and posterity of the woman and the Fathers, and therefore to haue been indeede begotten of the substance of Marie, and to haue taken true flesh.*\n\nThirdly, The office of the Mediatour confirmeth the same. *The sinne of men in respect of gods truth and iustice, could not bee punished in any other nature, than in a humane nature, which shoulde bee of the same kind with ours. But in the Mediatour which is Jesus Christ alone, our sinnes were to bee punished. Therefore he must needes bee true man, who hath humane flesh, not created of nothing, or borne else-whence, but sprong from the bloud of Adam, as well as ours.* Moreouer, *Jt was necessarie for Christ not onelie to take, but also to retaine our nature for euer:* Because GOD hath decreed to bestowe, and dooth bestowe the benefites, which Christ by his death hath purchased for vs, by this man CHRIST vpon them onely, who are and remain engraffed into his masse and flesh, as members into their head, or braunches into their vine. 1. *Cor.* 15.21. *For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.* Iohn. 15.6. *Jf a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a braunch and withereth* Lastly, *Jt behoued Christ to be made and to continue our brother for euer,* that as he is flesh of our flesh, so we also of the otherside might be flesh & bones of his flesh and bones, by the same spirite dwelling in vs. *Eph.* 5.30. *We are members of his bodie, of his flesh, and of his bones.* Iohn. 5.56. Eph. 4.12.16. Rom. 8.11. &c. Wherefore except Christ had indeede taken our nature, without which hee cannot be our brother, we shoulde loose that comfort euer needefull and necessarie for vs, which consisteth in the Brotherhood onely of Christ with vs: I am of his flesh and of his bones.\n\n1 Obiection. *The flesh of Adam (that is, humane flesh issuing from Adam by generation vnto his posteritie) is sinnefull. The flesh of Christ is not sinnefull, therefore the flesh of Christ, is not the flesh of Adam.* Aunswere. The Maior proposition hath a fallacie of the accident. For it is not necessarie, that of whatsoeuer the accident of a thing is denied, of the same the thing also or subiect of the accident shoulde bee denied: because an accident dooth so cleaue to the thing wherein it is, as it may bee separated from it. Sinne is not of the essence and nature of humane flesh: for that was created pure of God: but sinne came otherwise, by the defection & falling of our first parents from god. Seeing then the flesh of Adam is sinfull only by an accident, it foloweth that the flesh of Christ is onely in respect of that accident not the flesh of Adam, but is as touching the substaunce the same flesh with the flesh of Adam. Wherefore they deale like Sophisters, who denie the flesh of CHRIST, for that it is voide of sinne, to bee the same in substaunce, or Essence, or kinde, with the flesh of Adam. For hee that coulde in the beginning create humane flesh pure of nothing, is able also by his omnipotent power, and speciall working so to forme it of the substaunce of the Virgin being a sinner, as withall to let and stop any issuing of sinne thereunto, that is, to make it pure and holy. There is no new or strange thing therefore, if the omnipotent Lord hath tooke humane substance, without the accident, sinne, into the vnity of his person. Wherefore this their Argument shalbe rather thus inuerted: *The flesh of Adam is true flesh. Christs flesh is the flesh of Adam: therefore Christs flesh is true flesh: and by a consequent, Christ is true man:* as also the office of the Mediatour did require, that he should both bee and continue true man. For seeing true men had sinned, he was to be true man that shoulde make satisfaction. Because it must bee one and the same Mediatour, who must alwaies make intercession vnto the father for vs, and hee must euer continue such, that is, true and very man.\n\n2 Obiection. *That which is conceiued and begotten of another, is of the same substance with him. The flesh of Christ was conceiued of the holie Ghost. Therefore the flesh of Christ is no creature, but came downe from heauen, issuing from the substaunce of God.* Aunswere. There is a fallacie in the diuers vnderstanding of the particle OF. For that in the Maior signifieth the matter or material cause, in the Minor the efficient cause onely, that is: That which is conceiued or begotten of another, transfusing or passing his substance, or part of his substaunce into the thing begotten: this is of the same essence with him who begot it: CHRISTS fleshe was conceiued by the Holy GHOST, not that hee transfused or passed his substaunce into the flesh begotten, but because in miraculous sort, hee formed in the Virgins wombe of her substance the body of Christ, so that it should not be contaminated or polluted with original sinne. For neither could Christ bee in that sort conceiued by the holy Ghost, as that his fleshe shoulde issue from the spirits substance: and that for these causes. 1. *Because if this were graunted, then were he not borne man of the Virgin, or propagated of the Virgins substance.* 2. *Because God is not changed into flesh.* 3. *Because the Word tooke the flesh, but was not changed into it.*\n\n3 Obiection. *Jn God are not two natures. Christ is God. Therefore there are not two natures in him.* Aunswere. Meere particulars doe enforce nothing. For if the Maior bee taken vniuersallie, it is false: whosoeuer is God, in him are not two natures: this generall proposition is false. The Maior therefore is true, as touching God the father, and God the holy Ghost, but not as touching God the sonne incarnate. Replie 1. *But nothing can bee added vnto God, by reason of the great perfection and simplicitie of his nature. Christ is God; therefore the humanitie could not be added vnto his diuine nature.* Aunswere. Nothing can be added to God, whereby his essence may bee changed and perfected. But in that God the Word, ioined the humane nature vnto him personallie, there came no chaunge or great perfection thereby to the Word which tooke it, but to the nature which was taken. Replie 2. *Humane nature cannot come vnto him who dwelleth in the light that none can come vnto.* 1. Tim. 6.16. Aunswere. This is true, if so God doth not assume and take it vnto him. Replie 3. *But it is ignominious for God to be a creature. Christ, man, is God.* Aunswere. The chaunging of the Godhead into a creature, woulde haue beene ignominious and reprochful vnto the *Word:* but that the godhead shoulde bee vnited vnto a creature is is most glorious vnto god, as who by that meanes hath demonstrated and made knowen his infinite both goodnesse, and wisedome, and iustice, and power, to the whole world.\n\n## 2 Whether Christ be one person, or mo\n\n*In Christ are two perfect natures, whole, and distinct: and double properties also and operations naturall: but one person,* which subsisting in both these natures, diuine and humane, is truely designed by the concrete termes or voices of both natures. For it was requisit that one & the same should be Mediator both by merit, & by power. *But they who make two persons, make also two Christs* with Nestorius, *the one a man passiue and crucified; the other God, not crucified, and onelie assisting the man Christ by his grace.*\n\n1 Obiection. *Jn whom are two things which in themselues make two whole persons, in him also are two persons. But in Christ are two things which make two whole persons; namely the Word, which is by it selfe a person, subsisting from all eternitie, and the bodie and soule, which beeing vnited make likewise a person. Therefore in Christ are two persons.* Aunswere. We denie that part of the Maior, to wit, *That the bodie and humane soule doe, as in other men, so also in Christ concurre to make a created person of the humane nature, and diuers from the person increate and eternall of the Woordc.* For albeit the humane nature in Christ compounded of a bodie and a reasonable soule, is an indiuidual and particular or singular substance, as being from other indiuiduals of the same nature distinguished by certaine properties and accidents: yet neither was it or is it a person or subsistence.\n\nFor first, *A person is that which is not onelie a particular or singular thing, but also it selfe consisteth and subsisteth in it selfe, and by it selfe, not susteined in or of anie other. But CHRISTS humane nature, now from the verie first beginning thereof dependeth and is susteined by the person of the Word.* For it was at once both formed and assumed of the *Word* into vnitie of person, and made proper vnto the *Word:* before and without which assumption or personal Vnion, it neither was, nor had beene, nor shoulde be, so that this Vnion being dissolued and loosed, it must needes follow that that this flesh and this soule should be brought to nothing. Therfore Christs humane nature hath not any subsistence or person proper vnto it selfe. Secondly, *Jt belongeth to the nature or definition of a person, that it be an indiuidual incommunicable, and also no part of another. But the nature which the Word took and assumed belongeth to the substance of one Christ, a part also of whom it is after a sort.* Therefore in it selfe and by it selfe it is no person. Reply. *That which appertaineth to the substance of a person, and is a part thereof, cannot be a person. The word appertaineth and belongeth to the substaunce of Christ, and is after a sort a part of him, as well as the humanitie. Therefore neither shall the word be by this reason a person.*\n\nAns. The Maior proposition, if it bee vnderstood simplie or vniuersally, is false. For a reasonable soule, existing in the bodie, is not a person, but a part of an humane person, which the soule together with the bodie doth make: yet notwithstanding the same soule, being loosed from the bodie, is a person by it selfe, not that compound and mortall person, whereof it was a part, that is, an humane person, but a person most simple and immortall, such as are the Angels: because it subsisteth out of the bodie by it self, neither is part of another. So *may it be said of the Word,* if it be constred aright & with indifferencie, *that the Word in it selfe, and by it selfe is not the whole person of Christ or the Mediatour, as he is Christ and Mediatour;* that is, is not that whole thing, which is Christ, who is not onely God, but also man; *and yet is in it selfe and by it selfe the perfect and whole person of the Godhead, truelie subsisting before the flesh was, that is, the onelie begotten sonne of God.* For this selfe same person existing in it selfe from euerlasting, and remaining for euer most simple and vncompound, is, by the assuming of humane nature, made in time after a sort compound, that is, the *Word* incarnate. *Wherefore in respect of the person considered in Vnion, or incarnate, the Word is rather considered as a nature, and both it selfe, and the humane nature may be called as it were the parts of whole Christ,* & are so called also of many of the auncient Fathers which were sound in faith, not that the flesh assumpted did adde any part to the subsistence of the *Word:* or as if of the Persons of the *Word,* and the humane nature, as being vnperfect parts, was made another perfect person of a certaine third Essence, consubstantiall with neither of those natures of which it is compounded: but because the person of the *Word* altogether one and the same, which before the flesh was taken consisted in the diuine nature onely, doth now after the taking of the flesh, subsist in two perfect natures, diuine and humane, suffering no commixtion, confusion, or mutation: that is, *The person of the Mediatour is saide to bee constituted of two natures, diuine and humane, as it were of partes, because those two are necessarilie required, and doe concurre to the absoluing and accomplishing of the woorke of our redemption.* In this sense therefore both by auncient, and latter Diuines, and also by Schoolemen are vsed well and without daunger these Phrases and speeches: *Christs person is compounded: The two nature are, as it were the partes of Christ: The person of Christ is, consisteth, is constituted, is made of or in the two natures of God and man: the two natures concurre, come together into one person and subsistence: they make one hypostasis or subsistence: Both natures belong, and concur to the substance of one Christ: Both are of the substance of Christ: the humanitie with the Worde, or contrarie, the diuine person or subsistence with the humane nature doth constitute or make the substance of one Christ. Of the worde and the flesh assumpted, as of substantial parts doth one Christ consist.* By these and the like phrases of speech, vsed of this mysterie singular, and surpassing all capacitie of mans wit, the Orthodoxal, that is, men of a right and sound iudgement in pointes of faith will signifie and some way expresse this onely: that *the two natures are so vnited and linked in that one person of Christ, as that they exist wholy in the same person or subsistence, which is, perfect and whole, proper vnto the word from euerlasting by nature, and is, whole, made in time the person of the humanitie also now assumpted and destitute of the proper personalitie thereof: and this it is made by grace of vnion, so that the diuine subsistence or person of the Word, being in it selfe most simple and most perfect, doth notwithstanding subsist truely and indiuiduallie in the two natures.* Wherefore seeing the thing it self is cleare & agreed vpon among them who are of right iudgement and sound in faith, wee are not odiously to iar about words, especially since that concerning these supernatural thinges, no wordes of humane speech can be found, which way at all suffice for the expressing of them. But as it is not well said, *the person took the person, or the nature took the person:* So these speeches are true & agreeable to faith, *The person tooke the nature:* Likewise, *the Nature tooke the Nature.* For the diuine Nature is not here considered absolutely or essentially, but in the person of the *word,* or personallie.\n\n2 Obiection. *That which subsisteth not by it self is more vnperfect than that which subsisteth by it selfe. Christes Humanitie doth not subsist by it selfe: and ours doth subsist by it selfe: therefore Christs humanitie is more vnperfect than ours.* Aunswere. First, if, *that which subsisteth by it selfe,* be opposed to an accident, which existeth by being in another: this part of the Minor Proposition is false, that Christs humanity doth not subsist by it selfe: because that also is a substance. But in this disputation, *Subsisting by it selfe,* is opposed to that, which is indeede substance, but yet dependeth of another, and consisteth in another. So we say that mankinde, and the vniuersall or generall kindes of all thinges doe not subsist in themselues, but in their singulars, as the common nature of all men consisteth not by it selfe, but in particular men. Wherefore for further aunswere wee say, that the Maior proposition, beeing simplie, and generallie taken, is false. For the soule of man beeing loosed from the bodie, dooth subsist by it selfe; the same, while it remaineth in the bodie, consisteth not by it selfe, but vnited with the bodie: Neither yet is it therefore to bee thought more vnperfect, when this rather dooth most make to the perfection thereof. For it is created of GOD to this purpose, that it shoulde together with the bodie constistute and absolue the Essence of man, and shoulde bee a part thereof. So the soule and bodie of CHRIST were created to that ende, as to bee the proper soule and bodie of the sonne of GOD, and to depende personallie of him. That therefore CHRISTS humanitie hath his subsistence not in a created person proper vnto it by nature, but in the eternall hypostasis and person of the Worde: it is so farre from bringing any imperfection thereunto (for the subsistence or manner of subsisting doth not change the nature or essence of a thing) that rather the greatest ornament, glorie, and eminencie commeth thereby vnto it: and this is the chiefe and principall difference, whereby it differeth and is discerned from all men, and also from the blessed Angels.\n\n3 Obiection. *A dead and an euerliuing thing are not the same subsistent or person. Christ was dead, and yet euer-liuing. Therefore hee is not one person.* Aunswere. The Maior is either particular, or beeing taken generallie it is false. For one and the same subsistent, truely and indiuidually subsisting in diuers natures, euen as Christ is, may bee saide dead and euerliuing: as one and the same man is both mortall and immortall in respect of diuers natures whereof he is made and doth consist.\n\n## 3 What manner of Vnion this is of the two natures in Christ: and how made\n\nThe Vnion of the flesh with the *Worde* was not made in the Essence or nature, or in any essentiall property, but in the person of the *Word.* That this may be the better vnderstood we must obserue:\n\n*1* What is to bee vnited in nature, or into nature.\\\n*2* What likewise to be vnited in person, or into, or vnto one person, or according to subsistence.\n\n### 1. WHAT IS, TO BE VNITED IN NATVRE\n\nFirst, *Those thinges are saide to bee vnited in nature or Essence, which as essentiall partes are coupled to the ful perfection or constitution of one nature or essence, or kinde,* that is, which make a perfect and whole essence or kinde, and are one essence or substaunce. So the soule and bodie are vnited to constitute or make the kinde or essence, or nature of man: that is, are some one and perfect man. *Whatsoeuer thinges then are essentiall partes of a perfect thing, they are saide to bee vnited in nature, and vnto or into one nature.* Secondly, those things also are saide to bee vnited in nature or essence, *which are one in nature, essence, or kinde, or which are one essence, or of one essence and nature, or haue one common-essence, or vnitie of nature, or are ioined and agree in one essence.* So two men are saide to bee vnited in nature, that is, are one in kinde, or of the same humane nature. The three persons of the God-head are vnited in essence, that is, are one in Essence, or are of one and the same diuine essence, in number, or haue the same Godhead in common.\n\nSo likewise, *To bee vnited in properties or perfections naturall or essentiall, is to gette or haue the same, or like equall properties essentiall. Which is indeede nothing else than to bee made, and bee one nature, or moe substaunces of the same nature and essence.* So two men are vnited in naturall properties and perfections, because they haue the same in kinde, or the like, and therefore are of the same humane nature. The Aire in the Chimney, which getteth the perfections or qualities of the fier, as beeing nowe become a flame; and the fier of the burning coales which fiereth and inflameth the Aire next vnto it, are two substaunces of the same properties and fierie nature, and therefore are saide to bee vnited in nature and essentiall properties, that is, they are two fiers in number, but in kinde and nature they are one. Likewise the three diuine persons are vnited in essential properties, that is, haue the same essentiall properties: which is nothing else, but that they are one essence, one and the same God.\n\n### 2 WHAT IS TO BE VNITED IN PERSON\n\n*Those things are said to bee vnited in person, which are one person,* that is, *which although they differ in naturall properties, yet exist in one and the same indiuiduall subsistence: or haue altogether the same subsistence.* So the soule and bodie of man are vnited and concurre vnto one person, because they beeing vnited doe make one person, or one subsistent, incommunicable, not susteined in another, or of another. The Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghost are not vnited in person, or personall properties: because they haue these not the same, but distinct.\n\nBy this which hath beene saide, it is manifest, *That the Vnion in nature and naturall perfections, is an equalitie of properties and nature: but the personall Vnion is, when two vnlike natures are coupled, so that each reteineth his naturall properties and operations whole and distinct, but yet haue both one and the same subsistence wholie: or, it is the ioining of two natures different in properties, to constitute the substaunce of one indiuiduall, or person,* that is, such a connexion and knitting of them together, as that they are one indiuiduall subsisting by it selfe, or the substaunce of one indiuiduall.\n\nBut that in Christ *the Vnion of the flesh with the Woorde is not essentiall, made in the nature, or anie essentiall propertie of the God-head,* is shewed by these reasons. First, *Of the God-head and the fleshe assumpted, there ariseth not anie third Essence: but eache is and abideth an Essence so perfect and whole, as neither* (especiallie the Diuine, as beeing in it selfe a person and simplie voide of all change) *commeth into the composition or compounding (as wee properlie take this Word) of the other,* Secondly, *Jf the Vnion of the fleshe with the Word were essentiall; it would follow, that the humanitie once assumpted and taken was equalled with the Godhead, in essentiall properties, and so by a consequent, to bee made of the same nature & essence with the Word.* So Vigilius in his fourth booke sheweth, *that the Eutychians held two substances to be in Christ of the same nature.* Wherefore they who will haue the essential properties of the Godhead to be reallie communicated and common with the fleshe, so that the fleshe shoulde truely and reallie bee, and bee called omnipotent, omniscient, and whatsoeuer else the God-head is: they indeede, howsoeuer in woordes they mightily stand against it, holde this Vnion to bee made in essentiall properties and in nature, and both with *Eutyches* and *Schwenckfield,* they confounde both natures, and take away the difference betweene the creature and the Creatour; and also with Nestorius they frame and make two persons, and so bring in a quaternitie. For albeit they say, that they in that their confusion, or as themselues call it with their Master *Schwenkfield,* Deifiyng and Maiesticall exaltation of the fleshe, doe retaine the substance of the fleshe: yet two substaunces hauing reallie the same and like perfections are two *Subsistents* or persons of one nature, as are two men, and whatsoeuer other indiuiduals of the same kind or nature. Lastly with *Sabellius* and the *Patripassians* they incarnate the whole Trinitie. For there is one and the same Essence in number of the diuine persons, and the same essential properties. Wherefore that which is vnited, and equalled with one of these three according to essence, must needes be also vnited and equalled with the rest.\n\n*Wherefore the Vnion of both natures in Christ is personall, or according to the subsistence proper vnto the Word, both natures keeping and retaining, in that vnion, their properties whole and vnconfounded.* For the *Word* did not, by vniting humane nature vnto it, make the same the Godhead, or GOD, and omnipotent, immense, and infinite: but it tooke the manhood which reteineth still the properties belonging vnto it, and so did ioine and knitte it vnto it selfe, as to bee one person with it, and the substaunce of one Christ. Neither is it absurd, that a thing which neither is made or is one with another in kinde, neither any *Homogeneal* part thereof, shoulde yet exist in the same subsistence with it, or shoulde subsist in it selfe, where-with it is vnited. For a graffe hath his subsisting in a tree of another nature or kinde. The same is the subsistence both of the sprig, engraffed, and of the tree susteining the sprig: that is, they are one and the same indiuiduall tree, yet haue they and so doe retaine natures in properties most diuers. The like reason is there in the two natures of Christ both subsisting in or of the same person of the sonne.\n\nObiection. *The humane nature is vnited with the Word in person, but not in nature. Therefore the person is diuorced and sundered from the nature.* Againe, *The person onelie of the sonne is vnited with the humane nature: therefore not the diuine nature it selfe of the Word.* Aunswere. In both these Arguments is a fallacie from that which is no cause, as if it were a cause, and both offend in this: for that they who so reason against the maintainers of true doctrine, and men sounde in faith, either knowe not, or are not willing to distinguish betweene these two Phrases of speech, *To bee vnited in nature,* and, *to be vnited too or with a nature:* when notwithstanding the difference is very great, and most familiar, and knowne vnto the schoolemen. For to bee vnited in nature, is to bee equalled, that is, to bee made one essence or nature with another: To bee vnited too or with a nature, is to bee coupled and ioined therewith to one subsistence or personalitie. *Wherefore the fleshe is vnited to or with the the Woorde, not in nature, or in Essentiall propertie,* that is, it is not made with the Woorde one essence, neither made equall vnto it in omnipotency, wisedome, and nature: for so shoulde the whole Trinitie bee incarnate: *Yet is it vnited to the omnipotencie, wisedome, nature and essence of God, not simplie, but of god the Worde.* Now this is nothing else, than the flesh to be vnited to the person of the sonne, or to the *Worde* in person, which person is the verie diuine nature or essence, omnipotent, wise, and whatsoeuer else is proper to the Godhead.\n\nBut albeit the flesh taken or assumpted is truely vnited both to the person and to the nature of the Word: For the person is not any seuerall thing, or reallie differing from the essence, but is the essence it selfe: yet is it well saide, *that the flesh is vnited to the Word in person only:* and Likewise, *that the person onely of the Word is incarnate.* The reasons hereof are, 1. *Because not the Father nor the Holy Ghost were incarnate but the sonne onely.* 2. *Because the first and neerest terme of this vnion is the person onely of the Word assuming and taking the flesh, but not the Godhead.* For the person onely is proper vnto the Word: the essence of the Godhead is common to him and the same with the Father and the Holy Ghost. This is plainely taught by the 6. Toletan Councel, Cap. 1. in these wordes: *The son onely tooke the humanitie in singularity of person, not in vnitie of diuine nature, that is, in that, which is proper vnto the son, not which is common to the Trinitie.* And Rusticus in his dialog against the Acephalists: *Not god the Word by the diuine nature, but the diuine nature by the persō of god the Word is said to be vnited to the flesh.* And a little after: *Wherefore both God the Woorde and his nature is incarnate: hee by him selfe, & in that he is himselfe: his nature not so, but by the person. God the Word then as touching himselfe is vnited to the flesh, for he is made one person and one subsistence with the flesh; but as touching his nature hee is conioyned rather than vnited: because there remaine still two natures.*\n\nWherefore either foule & shamefull is the follie, or notorious the malice and slaunder of certaine smatterers, that of this verie orthodoxall and sound position not of the schoolmen onely, but of Councels also and auncient Fathers, *The flesh is vnited to the Word, in person onely, or according to subsistence; and this onely maketh the proper difference of personall vnion:* they inffer, *that by this meanes the diuine nature of the Woorde is drawen away from the personall vnion.* But let them againe and againe looke vnto it, least by that their reall communicating of the essentiall properties of the Godhead (which are the verie diuine essence common to the sonne with the Father and the holy Ghost) which communication they will haue to bee the personall vnion which they define by it, they ouerthrowe as well the eternall Godhead of Christ man, as also the manhood it selfe; and withall plainlie incarnate the whole Trinitie.\n\nThat then one and the same Christ is, and is called truly and reallie *the verie eternall God, immense, omnipotent▪ creatour;* and *true naturall man, finite, weake, subiect to passions and sufferinges, and a creature:* the onely cause is the vnitie of person subsisting in two natures perfect, whole, and reallie distinct, diuine and humane. For euerie indiuiduall and person is denominated or named of the natures or formes, and their properties and operations, cōcurring or subsisting in it. Wherefore seeing in the same indiuiduall person of the *Word* doe truely subsist, and belong to the substance of one Christ, these two most diuers natures: vnto one and the same Christ, of which soeuer nature he be called, do agree, & are affirmed of him all the attributes and properties both diuine and humane, but after a diuerse manner. *For the attributes which agree to Christ in respect of the personall vnion,* are of two sorts: *some are attributes or properties of the natures: others, of his office.*\n\n*The naturall attributes are those which are proper to ech nature: whether the same bee essentiall, belonging to the essence of the thing, or which necessarily followe & accompanie it, without which the nature can not consist: or accidentall, which may bee away and wanting, without the destruction of the nature.* The essentiall properties and perfections of the Godhead are, *to be eternall, vncreate, immense, euerie where present, not to be circumscribed in place, omnipotent, omniscient, and the like,* which are the verie essence of the Godhead, as also *to create, to giue the Holy Ghost, to regenerate.*\n\n*The essentiall attributes* of the humanity are, *to haue a soule vnderstanding, immortall; and a body compounded of elements, consisting of skinne, bloud, flesh, bones, veines and sinowes, hauing a certaine and definite greatenesse, figure, proportion and collocation or localnes of partes: and therefore to be circumscried in one place, to be solid, visible, palpable and such like.* These Christ reteineth for euer, because without these nothing can bee a humane nature. *The accidental properties* of the humanitie are *those infirmities which ensued vpon sinne,* which infirmities Christ together with the humane nature it selfe assumed and tooke without sinne. For he tooke the forme of a seruant, which by his resurrection and ascension hee laide down againe.\n\nThe attributes *of his office* are called those, *which agree not to one nature onely, but to both together, that is, it agreeth to the whole person, according to both natures, as being the compound of both.*\n\n#### A rule to be obserued as touching the attributes or properties of both natures in Christ\n\n*Both natures, and their properties are truely and reallie affirmed of the person and of themselues interchangeably, in concrete termes or voices: yet so, that the proper predicate which is proper vnto one nature is attributed to the person, not according to both natures, but according to that onely, to which it is proper.* The reason is, *for that one and the same person subsisting in two natures, hath and reteineth for euer reallie the properties of both natures: and also because one and the same person is signified by the concrete voices of both natures.* As therefore one & the same man is liuing and corporeal according to diuerse natures: and the corporeal is liuing by the soule onely, and contrarilie, the liuing is corporeall by the bodie onely: For both soul and bodie are of the substance and essence of the same man: So likewise *one & the same Christ, is God, eternal, immense, omnipotent,* according to the God-head onely: *is man, the Virgines sonne, created, finite infirme, and did suffer,* according to his humanity onely: So likewise *God is man, borne of a Virgine, annointed with the holy Ghost, and suffered,* according to the flesh; And *man is God, eternal, creatour, omnipotent, giueth the holie Ghost,* not according to the humane nature, but according to the diuine. For the sense and meaning of these speaches is: The person which is God, creatour of thinges omnipotent by reason of the God-head, the selfe-same person is man, a creature, infirme, by reason of the flesh subsisting in it.\n\n*But notwithstanding one nature, and the properties thereof, whether they bee vttered in abstract or in concrete voices, cannot be affirmed of the other nature or forme truly and really.* The reason is: *Because the vnion is not made in the nature, that is, two natures are not made one nature: and because in neither nature the properties of the other doe reallie exist, neither can exist.* For the natures doe not communicate each to other their essentiall properties, as neither doe these impart their essence, that is, one nature doth not receiue the properties of both natures.\n\nWherefore these kindes of speaches are false: *The Godhead is the manhoode or man; was conceiued, borne, did suffer, was dead:* and againe these: *The Man-hoode is the God-head or God; is eternal, immense, vncircumscribed in place, omnipotent, giueth the holie Ghost, dooth regenerate.* For al these are no more true and to be admitted, than those: A soule is a bodie, or corporeal, mortal, visible; and, a body is a soul, or a spirit, inuisible, immortal.\n\n1 Obiection. *The whole person of Christ is really omnipotent, euerie where, eternal &c. The humanitie and the God-head are the whole person of Christ. Therefore both are reallie omnipotent, euerie where, eternal &c.* Aunswere. This argument the *Vbiquetaries* who most of all ground vpon it, and often vse it, haue borowed from *Schwenkefieldeans,* who commonly in their bookes reason thus. *Whole Christ is the natural & onelie begotten Sonne of God, is the true and the same GOD, of the same infinite power and maiestie, with the eternall Father, conceiued, borne of the Virgine, suffered, was dead, rose againe, ascended into heauen, sendeth the Holie Ghost: But both natures belong to the whole person of Christ. Therefore Christ according to his humanitie also is the natural Sonne of god, begotten of the substance of the Father from euerlasting, and con-substantiall with the Father, and the same GOD with the Father, who is Creatour of all.* If then the *Vbiquetaries* collection bee lawfull and sound: this doubtlesse of the *Swenkefieldeans* is lawfull also and sound: but if the *Swenkefieldeans* collection bee corrupt and smelling of *Eutyches* heresie, then that of the *Vbiquetaries* cannot bee at all good and sound. But indeede both collections are *Eutychian* and Sophisticall; they are *Eutychian, because two natures, which are made equall in properties essentiall, or which get and haue the same or equall essential properties, are indeede made one nature and substance, or are two substaunces of one nature.* Both opinions take cleane away the nature of the humanitie & transform it into the God-head: but the latter dooth further make two persons in Christ of the same nature. It is also *Sophisticall: because whether the person of Christ be considered in it selfe, as it was a person being but one and perfect, & that before the incarnation, subsisting in one nature onely: or whether it bee considered, as it is incarnate, and now subsisting in two natures: yet stil the transition and passing from the person to the natures is faultie and Sophistical. For neither is it necessary that, what is truly in, and attributed vnto a person, the same also should bee reallie in al things concurring in that person, and bee affirmed of all.* The reason is, *because the parts or natures, though vnited in the same person, yet retain their properties & operations vnconfounded.* Wherefore that which is proper vnto the godhead cannot agree vnto the person, in respect of the flesh also, but only in respect of the godhead. Whole man vnderstandeth, discourseth and hath motion of wil, yet he doth not this by his finger or body, but by his mind only: whole man is mortal, and doth go, eat, and drink: yet none, but a mad man or an epicure will therefore say, that the soule also is mortal, or doth goe, eat, and drink. So not halfe, but the whole person of Christ was before Abraham, and from euerlasting did create and dooth preserue all thinges, and tooke flesh: But the fleshe neither was from euerlasting, neither did create, nor dooth preserue all thinges; nor tooke flesh, but was created, and being assumpted and taken is susteined of the *Word,* and in it. So whole christ was wounded, & dead, yet not his Godhead nor his soul. This is wel & learnedly declared & explicated by Damascene lib. 3. ca. 7. in these words. *Whole christ is perfect GOD, but not* THE WHOLE *of Christ,* that is, not both natures, *are God. For he is not god only, but also man. And* WHOLE *christ is perfect mā, but not* THE WHOLE *of christ is man. For he is not man only, but god too. For* THE WHOLE, *signifieth the nature;* WHOLE, *the person.*\n\nWherefore if the *Vbiquetaries* wil at al haue the illation & enforcing of their conclusiō on these premisses to be necessary: The Maior propositiō must be expoūded after this sort. The *person is god, creator, omnipotent, eueriwhere whole, that is, as concerning all that, which it is, or in which it dooth subsist, or which doth belong vnto it.* But the Maior taken in this sense is false & most absurd, as was shewed a litle before. For the true sense thereof is this: The person is euery where whole, that is, without diuision or sundering of natures, or subsisting vndiuidably in two natures. But the humanity is not that whole subsisting in two natures. Not euery thing then that agreeth really to the person, agreeth also really to the flesh. And albeit the person doth subsist in the humanitie & the God-head mutually vnited one to the other, yet, as it hath beene said, it is not hereof enforced, that because the person is euery where, therefore the humanity should be in proper substance present euery where. For this is proper to the godhead, neither is it really communicated to any creature or is in any. Reply. *The diuinity is one present in al pleces, but especially with the church. The diuinity is but halfe christ. Therefore only halfe christ is present with the church.* Answere. 1. ther is an ambiguity & doubtfulnes in the words, *halfe christ.* For if by *halfe christ,* they vnderstād one nature which is vnited to the other in the same person, the whole reasō may be granted: namely, that not both, but one nature onely of christ, though vnited to th’other, that is, his godhead is present with vs & al things in his proper substance, in al places & at al times. But they by, *halfe christ,* vnderstand craftily & sophistically the one nature, separated from the other: as if the godhead were made to be with vs bare & naked, & not incarnat. But in this sense the Minor is false, & the *Vbiquetaries* own inuētiō. For the same *Word, by reasō of the immēsnes & infinitie of his essēce is whole euerywhere, without his manhood: yet so that he withall is & abideth whole in his manhood personally vnited thereūto.* Wherefore the *Word* nether is nor worketh any where not vnited to the flesh: albeit the flesh, because it hath not an infinit essence, but reteineth it circūscribed in place, is not made to be present substātially in al those places, in which the *word* incarnat, or the *word,* mā is. 2. There is an ambiguity also & double significatiō in the word *present.* For *the presēce, wherby christ is presēt with his church, is not of one kind.* Wherefore if the Maior be vnderstood of the presence of his substance in al places, & of his being amongest vs & al other thinges, it is true. For the substance or essence of the God-head onely, & not of the manhood to, is immense & exceeding all measure, alwaies existing and beeing the same and whole in all thinges. But it is false, if it be vnderstood of the presence of his vertue or efficacie. *For according to this, not onely whole Christ, but also the whole of Christ is present with his Church only,* that is, not onely his diuinitie but his humanity also, but so, as the difference notwithstanding is kept of both natures & operations. *The humanitie therefore of Christ is present with all the elect, in whatsoeuer places they be dispersed through the whole worlde,* not by any presence substantiall of the flesh in the bread, and within their bodies, but 1 *By the efficacie and perpetuall valewe of his merite.* For God the Father dooth euen nowe behold the Sacrifice of his Sonne, once accomplished on the Crosse, and receiueth vs for that, as a sufficient ransome and merit, into his fauor. 1. *Joh.* 1.7. *The bloud of Jesus Christ his Sonne purgeth vs from all sinne▪* that is, both by his merite, & the efficacie or vertue of his merit. 2 *By the efficacie also of his humane will;* because Christ according to his humanity also earnestly both would & wil, that we be of god receiued into fauor, quickned, & glorified through that his one only Sacrifice. *Psal.* 110.4. *Heb.* 5.6. *Thou art a Priest for euer:* and also whatsoeuer he will, yea with his humane will, that hee powerfully effecteth and worketh, not by the power of his fleshe, but of his God-head or spirite omnipotent, whome not the flesh, but the God-head of Christ onely sendeth into the heartes of the elect and chosen. *Joh.* 6.63. *It is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. Rom.* 8.11. *God shall quicken your mortall bodies by his spirite dwelling in you.* 3 *Hee is present with vs by coniunction and vnion:* Because all those that are to bee saued must needes be engraffed and knit together euen into christs humane nature, that being engraffed into his humane masse, they may bee quickned, as branches liue fastned to the vine, & members coupled and ioyned to the head: which ioyning yet of vs with the fleshe of Christ is not made by any naturall connexion of Christ and our fleshe, or by any existence of Christs fleshe within our substance, or of ours within his, but by faith and the holy ghost, in Christ our head, & dwelling in vs his mēbers. *Ephes.* 3.17. *That Christ may dwell in your harts by faith.* Rom 8.9. *If any man hath not the spirit of Christ, the same is not his.* Ephes. 5.30. *We are members of his bodie, of his flesh, and of his bones; and they twaine shalbe one flesh; This is a great secret,* & so forth.\n\n2 Obiection *Whatsoeuer is to be worshipped and adored is omniscient, omnipotent, and euerie where present, that is, hath the essential properties of the Godhead reallie communicated with it. Christs flesh is to be adored or is adorable: because whole Christ is adored. Therefore Christs flesh is reallie omniscient & omnipotent, and present eueriewhere.* Aunswere. This verie same reason is among the principal argumentes, whereby the *Schwenfieldeans* endeuour to frame after *Eutyches* manner a Maiestie and Deifying of the flesh of Christ: But both these & the *Vbiquetaries* are deceiued & deceiue by the ambiguitie and diuers taking of the worde, *adored. That is omnipotent & omniscient which is adored, that is which is adored in respect of it selfe, or for it selfe.* The humane nature is adored, not for it selfe, or according to the proper nature of it selfe: for that were idolatrous: but it is adored for the Godhead vnited therewith personally. Wherefore of the adoration of whole Christ, is but ill inferred the omnipotence also of his flesh. For the reason doth not follow, from the honour of the person, to the properties of the natures Replie. *That which is adored by reason of another, is also really omnipotent, & omniscient by reason of another. Christes fleshe is adored by reason of the God-heade, in whose person his flesh subsisteth. Therefore Christs flesh is also really ommniscient, & omnipotent, by reason of the God-head.* Answere. The Maior is false, as is this: *That which is made base and humiliated by reason of another thing, is also by reason of another thing obnoxious & subiect to alteration.* For the *Woorde* was made base or humiliated by reason of the flesh and in the fleshe, neither yet the *Worde* it selfe or the God-head felt any change or alteration: but is humiliated and so saide to be after another maner, because the *Woorde* doth not shew his Godhead in the flesh, which we tooke in the forme of a seruant. So then *albeit the adoration of Christ God and man doth presuppose in him omnipotencie, omnisciencie, presence euerie where, and the searching of hearts and reines: yet is it not of necessity, that the humane nature also, which by reason of the God-head vnited to it in the same person is adored, should be really omnipotent, omniscient, & euerie-where.* For the adoration of christ is the honor & worship which agreeth & is yeelded one & the same to whole christmā & god, keeping notwithstāding the differences in natures, of the properties & operations, whereon Christs office & honor doth depend. For *to adore, & worship christ, is, by the agnising & knowledge of his person & office, to craue of him with a tru trust & cōfidence, that those blessings which he hath promerited & promised, he wil, as our mediator, performe & giue to vs, according to the proper wil & operation of each nature.* This adoratiō cōsisteth of diuerse parts: compriseth both natures; & keepeth their properties & operations, though vnited, yet stil distinct, & craueth, that whole Christ in performing his promised benefits, wil worke those things by his God-head, which are proper to his God-head, & by his flesh those things, which are proper to his flesh. For his benefits are no otherwise to bee craued & asked of him, than as himselfe wil & doth performe thē to vs: & he performeth thē, stil keeping the difference of both natures. Wherfore they who craue of christ the Mediator the benefits promised in the Word, do necessarily acknowledge him omnisciēt, the searcher of hearts, omnipotēt, present euery where, of himself beholding & hearing our necessities & cōplaints. *This agnising, & this honor is proper to God, and agreeth & is yeelded to Christ, man, in respect of his God-head only, & not of his humanity.* For in one act, or view vnchāgeable, to behold, know, & vnderstand, from euerlasting, of himselfe, al thinges past, presēt & to come, but chiefly the needs, wants, necessities & desires of his whole church; again, to send the holy ghost into the harts of al the elect & chosen, who haue bin euē since the beginning of the world, & by this spirit to teach thē with in, to iustifie, regenerate, cōfort thē, & to giue to thē eternal life: these, I say, are not proper to flesh created & finit, but to a nature infinit, omnipotēt, & existing frō euerlasting. Therfore christ promiseth the holy ghost to his disciples, which is the spirite of trueth, wisdome, feare, praier, grace, &c.\n\nBut although after that maner which hath bin spoken of, the god-head only, & christ by reason of his god-head, doth behold & do al things, & is adored of vs: yet *his humanity also doth behold, vnderstand & hear our necessities, desires cōplaints & praiers;* yet after another sort, that is, not of it selfe, but by the godhead reueiling & shewing our desires to the humane vnderstanding which is vnited to it▪ And furder *it performeth those things which we craue,* both *by the efficacy of his merit,* & *by intercession made incessātly to the father for vs,* whereby he wil & obteineth of his father all blessings for vs: & by *the force and omnipotency,* not of his flesh, but of his godhead vnited thereunto, by which christ, man, doth effectually apply to vs those benefits which he hath obtained for vs of his father. Now to acknowledge, when we worship Christ the Mediatour, these things in him, & to profes the same both in words, gestures, & actiōs, is the honor which is du & is exhibited by vs to his humanity by reason of the god-head vnited thereto, yet so, that this veneratiō of the humanity is not separated frō the honor, which agreeth to Christ according to his Godhead. For *with one & the same particular & indiuiduall inuocation & worship we speak to & honor whole christ, god & man, according to the properties of both natures, which he reteineth, & will haue also now in his glory & for euer to be attributed to him, vnitely, but yet distinctly,* that is, As the persō & office of the mediator, so the adoratiō or worship is cōpound, hauing parts, whereof some agree to the godhead, some to the flesh: & as in the office, so also in the honor of the person, the properties & operations of the natures are not separated, nether yet confounded, but being vnited, are distinguished. Wherefore as it doth not folow, *The godhead in Christ is redēptres by reason of the flesh assūpted: Therefore it is also subiect to sufferings, & mortal, did suffer, & was dead:* So is there no necessity in this *Vbiquitary* argumēt: *Christs humanity is adored by reason of his god-head: Therefore the same is also really omnisciēt, omnipotēt, & after the same maner to be adored, as is the godhead.* The reason is, *because of the fellowship or coniunction of office & honor in the person, the same properties & operations in natures are wrongly & heretically inferred.* The sum of al is: *That christs humanity is adored by reason of his godhead, cōmeth not thereof, as if his humanity also were really omniscient and omnipotent, as is the God-head: For by reason of these & other like properties, is the godhead only inuocated: but because it doth truely know, vnderstād, hear, our necessities, cogitations, desires, & praiers, the diuine intelligence & vnderstanding which is vnited to it reueiling and opening them vnto it: And also because what we craue at christs hands, the same it effectually performeth, not by the bones, sinowes, hands, fingers, feete, but by the force and power of the same God-head.*\n\nFurdermore that maner & form of speaking, *whereby the properties of one nature are really attributed to the person denominated of the other nature, or of both natures,* is vsuallie called *the communicating of the properties;* Likewise, *the communicating of names;* because the names and attributes of both natures are affirmed of the same person, and of themselues enterchaungeably, by reason of the vnitie of person consisting of both natures. *The communicating of properties hath some resemblance of the figure in speech called Synecdoche,* and is termed by manie Synecdoche, because *that is affirmed of the whole person, which agreeth vnto it onelie in respect of one of the natures as a part.* It is also called *a mutuall and enterchaungeable attribution:* because *as humane properties are attributed vnto god, in respect of the humanitie, so diuine are attributed vnto man, in respect of the Diuinitie.* As, *God suffered, man is omnipotent.* So likewise, *the communicating of names.* For *Man is God; and God is Man, by reason of the personall vnion of both natures.*\n\n#### A rule to be obserued concerning the attributes or properties of the office of Christ Mediatour\n\n*The names of office and honour agree vnto the whole person, in respect of both natures; keeping still the differences in natures of properties and operations.* These attributes are rightlie affirmed of subiectes both concrete, and abstract, that is, both of the person, and of the natures. For it is well said, *The God-head quickeneth, the Man-hood quickeneth; And God or man quickneth.*\n\n*The attributes of office* are, *to be Mediatour, to make intercession, to redeeme, to saue, to iustifie, sanctifie, purge from sinnes, to be Lord and Head of the Church, to be woorshipped, to heare, and such like.* These offices require the properties and operations of both natures, not separated, neither yet confounded, but conioined and distinct. For euen *for this verie cause was it necessarie that the two natures should be vnited in Christ Mediatour, that what neither nature could doe being set a part, in the work of our redemption, that Christ subsisting in both ioined together might doe and accomplish by both.* As therefore the natures themselues, so their properties also or faculties of woorking and operations are proper and remaine diuerse and distinct, yet so, that they concurre to the effectuating and working of one *effect* or work, and benefit: as parts and communicated labours. For albeit the natures doe alwaies labor & work together in the office and benefits of the Mediator, & nether without other: yet doth not therefore one worke the same which the other doth: But each woorketh, according to his property & force of woorking, onely that which is proper to each nature, & not that also which belongeth vnto the other. As neither the soule doth that which is proper vnto the body, neither the body that which is proper vnto the soule, but the same man doth woorke some one worke by his body and soul, each dooing their proper function: So likewise the humanity doth neuer accomplish that which is proper vnto the God-head, nor the Godhead that which is proper vnto the manhood, but the same Christ executeth and perfourmeth one and the same office & benefit, by both natures, which he hath in him as parts of his person, the Worde woorking according to the propertie thereof, what belongeth to the Worde, and the fleshe in like manner executing according to the peculiar and proper faculties thereof, & not according to others, that which belongeth to the flesh. For the properties & operations proper to each nature, are not common to both natures, but to the same person consisting of both natures.\n\nWherefore in such like phrases of speech concerning Christes office, which are called of the auncient 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that is, communicatings, or such as make thinges common) *the properties and operations of natures are to be distinguished from the office of the person, & frō the honor which in respect of the office is due vnto the person:* Likewise *one effect, or act theandricall, (that is, both of god and man) or woorke, or benefite, from one operation or action, as the whole from a part.* The office is common to both natures: but the natures proper faculties of woorking, and actions in exequuting that office, are not common to both natures. For that the same shoulde bee both proper and common, doth implie a manifest contradiction. So the worke and benefite of whole Christ, is a certaine whole thing, and is as it were compound, and common to both natures: but there are two partes heereof, and diuerse operations, proper to each nature, which are wrought yet iointlie, and belong to the same person, which is Christ, God and man, that is, both are wrought of one person according to diuerse causes and originals of woorking, or according to diuerse natures, but not by one and the same nature.\n\nBy these groundes it is easie to dissolue & assoile most of the Sophismes and cauils, with which at this time both the *Schwenkefildians,* and *Vbiquetaries* are woont to glose and blanch that their real communicating of essential properties in natures, and their *Eutychian deifieng* of Christs flesh, & to thrust the same vpon the simple for the true glory & maiestie of Christ himselfe. For thus they reason. *The offices & benefits of the Mediatour, his redemption, intercession, purging frō sins, quickning, sitting at the right hand of the Father, his dominion and Lordlie power ouer al creatures, his presence with the church, beholding, ruling al things, raising the dead, iudging both quicke and dead, al these agree to Christ according to both natures. Therefore the humanitie, as wel as the diuinitie, is also it selfe reallie omniscient, searcher of harts, omnipotent, present in the substance of his bodie, at the same moment, in al places, doth of it selfe know al things, hear our cōplaintes & praiers, giue the holie ghost, & work by him in the hearts of the chosen faith and conuersion, & to conclude, in respect of these things the humanitie it selfe also is for it selfe adorable & to be adored as wel as the godhead.* To these and the like there is one and a readie aunswere, namelie: *That it is ill going from the person, and from the office & honor of the person to the properties & operations of the natures:* Or, *The societie and coniunction of the office and honor, dooth not cause or inferre the same properties or operations of both natures:* Or, *In the affirmation of the office & honor are not signified the same properties of both natures, nor the working of the same operations, but the coniunction or concurrence of distinct operatiōs proceeding frō distinct properties, to the same effect or action theandrical, that is, of god and man.* The reason is, *because of redemption, quickning, adoration & the like, which are the functions, benefits & worship of the whole person, there are moe and diuerse manners and parts, which all agree reallie to one & the same person, but not to one & the same nature, but some to the god-head onlie, some onlie to the manhood.* Wherefore this Maior of the reason is false: *Whatsoeuer thinges agree vnto Christ, god and man, according to both natures, the same also doe agree after the same manner, and as touching all parts, to both natures.* For it doth not followe, because the godhead is redemptresse, therefore also it suffered and was dead.\n\n*Now that those things which in the person & office of the Mediatour are and abide proper vnto one nature, neither are made, nor are, by reason of the vnion, common to both natures;* maie be shewed at large, but now let these few suffice.\n\nFirst: *Such as is the vnion of the natures, such is the communicating of the properties. But the vnion of the natures was not made in the natures, or into one nature, but in the person, or vnto one person. Therefore the communicating of the properties was made in the person, not in the natures;* that is, the vnion maketh the properties of both natures common, not to one nature but to one person. For *not one nature, but one person, hath truly, as two natures, so also double properties and operations, and those infinitely differing, created and increate, finite and infinite.* Wherefore as by vnion the man-hoode was not made the God-head or God, so neither is it immense, infinit, and omnipotent. But contrariwise, *man neuerthelesse is trulie and reallie as God eternal, so omnipotent also, and eueriewhere, and giuer of the Holy Ghost.* The reason is, *Because not the manhood, but the Man Christ hath indeed in his substance the eternall and immense God-head.*\n\nSecondly, *That which is proper to one can not bee common to moe,* that is, can not exist or be found together in other subiects also of diuers nature. For to be proper and to be common, are contradictory & therfore in fardest repugnancie.\n\nThirdlie, *There can not be made, one omnipotencie, and one omnipotent operation to be of both natures, whereby as well the manhood, as the Godhead, should be reallie omnipotent and worke diuine thinges: but there must needes be also one essence of both, whereby the manhood also must bee reallie God.* For the omnipotency, which they wil haue one and the same to be communicated vnto the flesh, is the Godhead it selfe.\n\nFourthly, *If Christs humanitie, in the office of the Mediator, doth it selfe reallie & effectuallie perfourme not onely that which belongeth vnto the flesh, but also those thinges which are proper vnto the Godhead, then either his Godhead shall bee idle and doe nothing in the woorke of our redemption, or surelie the fleshe assumpted shall doe more, and more shall be due and yeelded vnto, it, than to the Word which assumed and tooke it.*\n\nFiftly, *Jf the flesh, because it is saide to bee quickning, is also omnipotent, and doth by proper vertue regenerate mens hartes: after the same sort also may it bee saide, that the God-head also, because it is redemptresse, is subiect to suffering and did suffer.* For both quickning and redeeming, are properties of the office, common to both natures, but not after one and the same manner.\n\nSixtly, *The whole maiesty of the God-head is, that it is an essence, existing, not of another, but of it selfe, and subsisting by it selfe, spirituall or incorporeal, eternall, immense, vnchaungeable, of infinite power, wisedom, goodnes &c.* That is, the whole Maiesty compriseth all the perfections and operations proper vnto the Godhead. *But omnipotencie is the whole maiestie of the God-head,* according to the supposition of the *Vbiquetaries:* For so *Schmideline* writeth in the 142. conclusion of his disputation, of the Lords Supper, & of the communicating of the properties, had at *Tubinge* in the yeare *M.D.LXXXII. In the word omnipotencie I comprise the whole maiestie of the godhead:* And in his 143. conclusion, *Omnipotencie is the verie essence it selfe of the God-head. &c.* Therefore *if Gods omnipotencie bee really communicated to Christs humanitie, so that this also is by reason of the omnipotency communicated vnto it, reallie omnipotent▪ of necessity then by reason of the same omnipotency really communicated Christes humanitie shall bee indeed an essence, subsisting of it selfe and by it selfe, incorporeall, eternall, immense, creatres of all thinges,* that is, God himselfe blessed for euer, and so by consequent, the diuine person. For an essence intelligent, subsisting by it selfe, & which also is God, must needs be the person. And these are the fruits of reall communicating of properties in natures.\n\n*The participation of the God-head, exaltation and maiestie of the flesh and such like, is not a real communicating of the essentiall properties of the God-heade made into the humane nature, or an omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotency, that is, a God-head of the man-hood:* For such a communicating should not perfect but destroy the man-hoode, and conuert it into the God-head, and dissolue the personal vnion of distinct natures: *but it is,* First, *the verie vnion of the humanitie with the Word in such sort, as it being created & finite, doth together with al the essential properties therof subsist, not in a created person of the same humane nature, but in the increate and eternal person of God the Word:* by reason of which vnion, *God the Word* (but not the God-head) *is & is called trulie man▪* and contrarie, *man* (but not the manhood) *is and is called truly eternall God.*\n\nNo dignitie & eminence can be imagined greater than this, neither doth it agree to anie but to the flesh of Christ onely. Secondly, *Jt is the excellencie of gifts.* For these christs humanitie receiued without measure, that is, all whatsoeuer, and most great, and most perfect, that maie fall into a created and finite nature. Thirdly, *The office of the mediator,* to the perfourming whereof the vnited but yet distinct properties and operations of both natures doe necessarily concur. Fourthly, *The honor and worship, which by reason of the Mediatorship, agreeth & is giuē to whole christ according to both natures,* keeping still, as was before saide, the difference of properties and operations in natures.\n\nNow whatsoeuer testimonies some bring either out of the Scriptures, or out of the Fathers which were sound in faith, thereby to proue that their *Eutychian transmutation,* and a third kind of communicating forged by themselues, that is, exequation or equalling of natures, all those testimonies indeed belong either *to the grace of vnion* of the natures, which is signified by *the communicating of properties;* or *to the grace of Christes Headship,* which compriseth the office and honour of the Mediatour, which are affirmed of whole Christ by waie of communicating: or *to the habituall grace,* that is, the created giftes, which Christ receiued without measure, which are properly affirmed of the flesh or humanitie. *These giftes* which are also called *graces, are not properlie effectes of the personal vnion,* as are the attributes or properties of the natures and office. First, *because they are communicated to the manhoode as well of the Father and the Holie Ghost, as of the Word or Sonne.* For he is said *to haue receiued of the Father the spirite without measure,* that is, aboundauntlie: likewise *to be annointed with the Holy Ghost.* And, if the giftes were effects of the vnion, it would follow of necessity, that the flesh was vnited not to the Son only, but to the Father also and the holy Ghost. Secondlie, *The vnion of the flesh with the Woord, was from the verie moment of the conception alwaies most perfect: But the consummation and perfection of giftes was not vntil the accomplished time of his resurrection & ascension.* For hee was indeede *humble, weake, and contemned:* he was indeede *ignorant of some things:* he did indeede *encrease in wisedome, stature, and in fauour not with men onely, but also with God himselfe.* Thirdly, *The flesh, when it was in the state of humility, had not immortality or a nature not subiect to sufferings or the like, and yet remained it alwaies vnited with the Woorde.* Wherefore the habitual giftes or graces of the humanitie, for which it is also in it selfe reallie wise, mighty, iust, holie, follow not the personal vnion in respect of dependency, as the effect followeth and dependeth of this cause, but onely in respect of order: Because namely, the humane nature was first to subsist and bee, before it were enriched with giftes: and it subsisteth vnited to the *Woord* in the very first moment of the conception.\n\nBut *after what maner the humanitie is vnited vnto the Sonne of God,* hath beene said before. For by the special and miraculous working of the holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgine, of her blood was the flesh of christ formed, sanctified, and vnited according to subsistence, or personally vnto the *Woord.*\n\n## 4 Why it was necessarie, that the two natures should bee vnited in the person or subsistence of the sonne of God\n\nFor what cause Christ our Mediatour was to bee together both a true and perfect iust man, and true, that is, by nature GOD, hath beene declared of vs before in the common place of the Mediatour, in the 4 question pag. 237. For the woorke of our redemption could not haue bin compassed and finished by the Mediator without the concurrence of diuers natures & operations in the same person. For albeit he suffred & died in the flesh, yet his passion and suffering would not haue that force and efficacy to redeeme, iustifie, & sanctifie vs, neither could christ haue applied those benefites vnto vs except he had bin withal true and natural God.\n\n#### Of the Incarnation of the Word, the confession made by the Fathers of Antioch against Paulus Samosatenus, TAKEN OVT OF THE ACTES OF THE FIRST EPHESINE COVNCEL\n\nWee confesse our Lord Iesus Christ begotten before all worlds of his Father, but in the last times borne according to the flesh of the Virgine by the holy Ghost, subsisting in one person onely, made of the celestiall God-head and humane flesh. Whole God, and whole man. Whole God also with his bodie but not according to his body, god. Whole man also with his God head, but not according to his God head, man. Againe, whole adorable also with his bodie, but not according to his bodie, adorable. Whole adoring also with his Godhead, but not according to his godhead, adoring. Whole increat also with his body, but not according to his body, increated. Whole formed also with his Godhead, but not according to his godhead, formed. Whole consubstantial with god also with his body, but not according to his body, consubstantiall: as neither also, according to his Godhead he is coessentiall with men: but hee is according to the flesh consubstantiall vnto vs existing also in his Godhead. For when wee say hee is according to the spirit consubstantiall with God, wee doe not say hee is according to the spirit coessentiall with men. And contrarily, when wee affirme him to bee according to the flesh consubstantiall with men, we doe not affirme him to bee according to the fleshe consubstantial with God. For as according to the spirit he is not consubstantial with vs▪ (For according to this he is consubstantial with God:) So of the other side he is not according to the flesh coessentiall with god: but according to this he is consubstantiall with vs. And as wee pronounce these to bee distinct & diuerse one from the other, not to bring in a diuision of one vndiuided person, but to note the distinction and vnconfoundablenes of the natures and properties of the Word and the flesh; so we affirme and worship those as vnited, which make to the manner of the vndiuided vnion or composition.\n\n#### Vigilius Lib. 4. against Eutyches\n\nIf there be one nature of the Word & the flesh, how then, seeing the Word is euery where, is not the flesh also found euery where? For when it was in the earth, it was not verily in heauen: and now because it is in heauen, it is not verily in the earth: and in so much it is not, as that as touching it wee looke for Christ to come from heauen, whom as touching the Word we beleeue to bee in the earth with vs. Wherefore according to your opinion, either the Word is cōteined in place with the flesh, or the flesh is euery where with the Word, where as one nature doth not receiue any contrarie or diuers thing in it selfe, and it is a thing diuerse and far vnlike, to be circumscribed in place, and to be euerie where: and seeing the Word is euerie where, and the flesh is not euerie where; it is apparent, that one and the same Christ is of both natures, and is euerie where as touching the nature of his Godhead, but is not eueriewhere as touching the nature of his manhood: is created, and hath no beginning: is subiect to death, and cannot die: the one he hath by the nature of the Word, whereby hee is god▪ the other by the nature of his flesh, whereby the same God is man. Wherefore that one son of God, and the same made the sonne of man, hath a beginning by the nature of his flesh, and hath no beginning by the nature of his Godhead: was created by the nature of his flesh, and was not created by the nature of his godhead: circumscribed in place by the nature of his flesh, and not conteined in any place by the nature of his Godhead: is lower also than the Angels by the nature of his flesh, and is equal with the father according to the nature of his God-head: died by the nature of his flesh, and neuer died by the nature of his Godhead. This is the Catholique faith and confession, which the Apostles deliuered, the martyrs established, and the faithfull hitherto holde and mainetaine.\n\n*Now haue wee in few wordes expounded those articles of the Apostolique creede, which intreate of the person of Christ; and haue withall declared in the exposition thereof; those things which are necessarie for vs to knowe, both of the diuinitie of Christ, and of his humane nature, which was taken by the* Word *of the seede of Dauid, vnited personally with the Word by the vertue of the holy ghost, and begotten in maruelous nanner of the Virgines substance.* And it was requisite not to suffer that any sinne should passe or bee deriued into his substance, *1.* Because hee was to satisfie for sinne. *2.* Because it was not conuenient or meet that the Woorde the sonne of God, should take a nature defiled with sinne.\n\nTo beleeue *then* in the son of God conceiued by the holy ghost, *is to beleeue 1.* That he was made man after a marueilous manner, and that hee was made one Christ of a diuine and an humane nature. *2.* That hee being so holily conceiued and borne doth purchase for vs the right and power to bee the sonnes of God. *Because this person is sufficient & able to recouer for vs our lost righteousnes, and to bestowe it on vs. For hee is vnited with the Worde, that is, hee is true and naturall God and man, such as the Mediatour ought to bee. Hee will also performe this, because he was borne to this end, euen to sanctifie vs. Of al these euerie one of vs may certainlie collect and conclude, That* this Christ is our Mediatour. And the reason of this collection and consequence is: Because by this, that he is the only begotten Sonne of God, it is manifest that Christ is true God, consubstantial, coeternal, and equall with the Father. By his holy conception and natiuitie, it is also manifest that hee is true man, and that perfectly iust, and vnited with the God-heade or Woord: and such a one was it requisite our Mediatour should be.\n\n[^1]: Two natures in Christ.\n[^2]: Christ true man and of our kinde and nature."}