H. Zanchius his confession of Christian religion Which novve at length being 70. yeares of age, he caused to bee published in the name of himselfe & his family. Englished in sense agreeable, and in words as answerable to his ovvne latine copie, as in so graue a mans worke is requisite: for the profite of all the vnlearneder sort, of English christians, that desire to know his iudgement in matters of faith.

An appendix to the eleuenth chap. Of Christ the redeemer or of the person of Christ.

THey which write that the essentiall pro∣prieties of the diuine nature, are reallie communicated to the humaine nature, not that they be in the same, either essentiallie and formally, or subiectiuelie and habitually, but onely by the reason, and respect of the personall or Hypostaticall vnion (for so they speake, darkelie indeede and ambiguouslie, when both they might and ought to speake plainer:) if they meane this in no other sense, then as Vigilius writ and thought: namely, that the proprieties of the natures, are made pro∣per to Christ himselfe, but are common to the natures betwixt themselues, not in thēselues, but in Christ, that is, in his person: I will not surelie, gainesay them, neither do I thinke that any good or learned man will gainesay them. For Vigilius according to the catholick chur∣ches doctrine, speaking out of the councell at Calcedon, said and declared, that the proprie∣ties of the humaine nature were made commō to the diuine, in the verie same sense, that the diuine are also saide to bee communicated to the humaine. But now these proprieties of the humanitie, as to suffer, or to die, are so commu∣nicated to the deitie, that for all that, yet the

verie deitie is not made in verie deede, passi∣ble, or mortall: the cause whereof, Vigilius set∣teth downe to be this: namelie, because to die and to suffer, are not made common to the de∣itie but onely in the person: so that they can not truely be said, but of the humaine nature by it selfe, and of the person, in respect of the humaine nature.

Wherefore we must euen so thinke and saye altogether of the communication of the di∣uine proprieties. Vigilius owne wordes bee these booke 5. chap. 2.

And now sith out intention is chiefly bent against those which following the error of one nature, doe with a willfull obstinacie re∣sist the decree of the Calcedon councell. I thinke it not amisse, for the remoouing of their vaine contradictions, and beating to peeces their glassie opinions with the mallett of truth, to rehearse some fewe things, concerning the humaine nature of the sonne of God, which they euerie waye denie to be in him: and to shew what want of christianity is in them, and how farre of they bee from the hope of euer∣lasting life. It is a rule of the catholick faith, to confesse, one and the same Lord Iesus Christ, as true God, so also true man: one of them both, & not two into one: the same without all time borne of the father, the same in time borne of the virgine: so that each of these births do so hold on Christ, that he suffred not any losse in

either: retaining in himself that was proper to him both waies, that is, that the nature of the word should not be chaūged in the flesh, & the nature of the flesh was not swallowed vpp in the word. Hereuppon the same Lord Iesus Christ, is true God, and the same, true man, ex∣isting vnspeakably of two natures, vnited to∣gether in one person in the virgines wombe: which natures, seing that in this wonderfull covnion they are not abolished in him: to shew a plaine extance and appearance of the pro∣prietie of them both in himselfe being one, he did and spake thinges, belonging to both: not deuiding the wordes, nor parting the as∣pects, nor seperating his deeds: but he himself being one, speaking and doing in himself and by both, that which was agreeable, and was proper to both natures. And to make it more plaine which we haue said, let vs vse an exam∣ple as thus, I my selfe am hee, which with my bodilie eyes doe behold a white colour or a blacke: and againe I am hee, which by sight of my minde doe iudge of the euill of iniquitie, and the good of righteousnesse: yet notwith∣stāding I am not now diuers persons, because I doe both these in a diuerse respect. For I doe not see the difference of coulours, with the same eyes, with which I see the diuersitie of speaches: and yet I am the verie same, which doe this both the wayes: both are in me not to see righteousnesse but onely with the eyes

of my minde, and it is in me not to see co∣lours, but onely with the eyes of my flesh: and it is in me not to heare wordes with my eyes, and in me not to see light with my eares: in me not to iudge of tastes with my nose, and in me not to perceiue smelling at my mouth. And whereas it is wholly mine owne proprietie in my selfe, to see, to heare, to smel, to taste: and yet it is one thing in me whereby I see, another whereby I heare, another wher∣by I taste or smell: and all this being in me wholly, and yet in a certaine priuate respect deuided and diuers: I my selfe notwithstāding cannot be deuided or seperated: So therefore Christ himselfe also, being one and the same, created, and not created; hauing beginning, & being without beginning: growing in age & vnderstanding, and receiuing no increase of age and vnderstanding: suffering death, & not yeelding to the lawes of death: receiuing ho∣nor for his desert, yet hauing need of no mās honor: and al these things being diuers in him, yet are meerely proper vnto himselfe: And therfore he diuideth not in himself, the words, affects, and deedes, agreeable both wayes in himselfe: because both are properly his owne: yet hauing one proprietie by the nature of the word, which remaining God, he lost not: and a∣nother by the nature of the flesh, which, being made man, hee receiued. Wee will yet speake more, to confirme more plainely this one na∣ture: for their sakes which through their vn∣saide

skilfullnesse, not vnderstanding the proprie∣tie and communion of the natures, howe it is said to be in Christ, do abuse and vtterly refuse the same words.

It is diuerse and another thing, not to haue beginning, and to subsist by a beginning: to die, and not to bee able to suffer: yet, as they are both proper vnto Christ, so are they both common, not vnto him, but in him. For if wee say, common vnto him: we must needs bee vrged and driuen, to giue and shew some other, with whom the same should be common vnto him: which necessity of instance, cannot but incline to the impious opinion of Nestorius. We ther∣fore better and more catholically: saye, it is common in him and not to him: and so wee say better, it is proper to him, and not in him. There∣fore it is proper to him to dye, by the nature of his flesh, which is mortall: and it is proper to him, not to dye, by the nature of the vvord, which cannot dye. Likewise by that vnspea∣kable misterie of the vnion of both the na∣tures, the mortallitie of the flesh was com∣mon in him, to the nature of the vvord, which could not dye: and the immortalitie of the vvorde was common in him, to the nature of the flesh, which yeelded to death. Therefore as it is proper vnto him in respect of both na∣tures, to dye and not to dye: so it is common in him, in both natures, to doe that which is their proprietie: and as I maye (for example sake) say, it is proper to me, to carry the marke

of the blacknesse of a stroakein my bodie, by the nature of my flesh: so it is proper to me to carrie the stripe of a word, that is, of some hard speach, in my minde, by the nature of my soule: and it is also proper to me, not to carrie the same stripe of wordes in my bodie by the nature of my flesh. And sith both these are proper to me: and both of them different from my bodie and from my soule: because neither my bodie vnderstandeth anie hard or any pleasing speaches, neither can my soule be made blacke by the stroake of a whipp: yet both these are common in my selfe, both to my soule and to my body: because, neither my soule placed out of my bodie, doth feele that, which is proper to it to feele: nor my bodie without the companie of my soule, can car∣rie the marks of the blowes. That therefore, which is proper vnto me in either of them and yer different from neither of them; that is common in my whole selfe to either of them, which is proper to either of them.

And yet I am the verie same in them both, being both of them common in me: and I am the very same in either of them, being both proper to me. This saith Vigilius.

What can more fittly be said for the deci∣ding of this present controuersie, of the reall communication of the proprieties? For this whole treatise of Vigilius is resolued into these speciall propositions, pertaining to our cause. For setting first downe a rule of the

catholicke faith, which in the text is mar∣ked with the letter A: then from the same hee draweth certaine positions, by which he mani∣festly confuteth the heresie of Eutyches. The summe of that rule of faith, is this: that one and the same Christ, is God and man: & both natures are kept whole in him. Out of this rule Vigilius gathered these positions.

1 The Lord Iesus Christ, is the same true God: and the same true man. The reason: for he existeth of two natures, (the diuine and the humaine) vnspeakablie ioyned and vni∣ted together in one person, and that in the vir∣gins wombe. This is against Nestorius; against Eutyches, is added another position.

2 These natures in that wonderfull cov∣nion, are not abolished in Christ. The confir∣mation followeth by the life of Christ: because the Lord Iesus both by his sayings and deeds did shew that the proprieties of both the na∣tures, remained safe and whole in him: there∣fore he addeth.

3 To she we an extancie (that is, an exi∣stence) of the proprieties of them both in him∣selfe being one: namely: that the proprieties of both the natures did exist distinct in him: he spake and did things of both natures himselfe being one. This is also against Eutyches.

But how? namely so, that he shewed, howe these sayings and deeds, were not the actions of two persons, but of one. Therefore against Nestorius he also addeth: Not in making a diuer∣sitie

in vvords, or shewing sundrie aspects, or sepera∣ting the deedes: but hee himselfe being one, speaking and doing in himselfe and by both (that is by both na∣tures) that vvhich was agreeable and vvas proper to both the natures.

By these words we may perceiue these two thinges as cleare as the noone day: one that there were not in Christ, two which did worke and will, & vnderstand, but onely one: name∣ly the very worde incarnate, which is called Christ: therefore he saith in himselfe being one &c. Also, hee himselfe being one speaking and doing in himselfe: this is the first, and that against Nesto∣rius.

The other is. That yet there were and are in Christ working, two beginnings of actions, distinct in themselues: by which those actions (as the schoolemen saye) were formallie per∣formed by the agent: namely the faculties or powers of the two natures: and this is against Eutyches.

And therefore hee ioyneth: by both (that is, by both natures) speaking and doing, that which is proper, to both natures.

Nowe who seeth not, that the the thinges which Christ did according to one nature: the same he did not according to the other? For he did by both, such thinges as were proper to each: he did not therefore according to his hu∣manitie, such things as belonged to his deitie: nor contrary wise.

Moreouer to cōfirme and set forth the same

he bringeth in an example of one & the same man, who according to the diuers faculties of the soule, doth worke diuers actions, and bringeth foorth deedes agreeable to each fa∣cultie.

The example appeareth of it selfe, there: And to make it more plaine, &c.

But we must warily marke his particles, not onely the affirmatiues, but also the negatiues. For he denies that a man sees those thinges with the eyes of his flesh, which he seeth with the eyes of his minde: and contrariwise. Ther∣fore hee also denies that Christ doeth those things according to his flesh: which he worketh according to his deitie. This he plainely de∣clareth, whenas applying the example, be∣sides other thinges he saieth of Christ, But ha∣uing one propertie by the nature of the word, vvhich remaining God, he lost not: and another by the na∣ture of the flesh, vvhich being made man, hee recei∣ued, &c.

It is also to bee marked, that Vigilius, as∣well denieth that Christ doeth by the flesh, that is, according to the flesh, those thinges, which are proper to the deitie: as hee deni∣eth that hee suffred & did those things accor∣ding to his deitie, which were proper to the flesh.

Vigilius also adioyneth a speciall declara∣tion of the proprietie and communion of the natures, and the same verie perspicuous & cer∣taine: where he saieth, We vill yet speake more to

confirme this nature for their sakes, &c. The summe is this:

4 The proprieties of both the natures are proper to the verie person of Christ: but are common to the natures betwixt themselues, not in the verie natures but in the person. The declaration is this.

For to die (which is the proprietie of the flesh) is proper to Christ. For in that hee is saide to haue died: it is properlie spo∣ken, in respect of the humaine nature which is in him. Also, not to die is proper to him in respect of his diuine nature, which cānot die.

Likewise to die, is common to the vvorde or deitie of Christ: not in the diuine nature it selfe, which cannot be partaker of death: but this was common to him with his flesh in the person, because the person which car∣ried the flesh could dye in the flesh, and Ie∣sus Christ did dye. The same is to be thought & said of the other part: as Vigilius also decla∣reth: adding the example of himselfe, that is, of a mā: where he saith, And for example sake, to say, &c. In this example there is nothing but that which is plaine.

But the conclusion is diligentlie to be mar∣ked, where he saith: That therefore which is pro∣per to me in either of them, and yet different from either of them: the same is common in me to ei∣ther of them, vvhich is proper to either of them. And yet I am the verie same one in them both, being both of them common in mee: and I am

the verie same in either of them, being both proper to me.

Nothing can be said more cleare for the de∣claration of the question concerning the reall communication of the proprieties. For first he teacheth, that the proprieties of the one nature are so proper vnto it selfe, that they are quite different from the other nature, and so diffe∣rent, that in their proper essence they can by no meanes be made common: that is, they cā not be so really communicated, that the same should be made that verie same, or the like vn∣to the other nature: as, for example, that the humanitie should bee made the deitie, or bee made omnipotent, or, on the contrarie, that the deitie could be made the humanitie, or be made partaker of passion or suffring.

2 He deliuereth in plaine tearms, that the proprieties of each nature, are proper vnto Christ: because indeed, it is proper vnto him in himselfe (for example) in one nature to suffer, and in his other not to bee able to suffer: so as this he hath common with no other thing, ei∣ther in heauen, or on earth, or in himselfe. For there is nothing besides himselfe, that is both God and man: and neither of the natures in him, hath also the proprieties of the other na∣ture besids their owne, in their proper essence. Therefore it belongeth onely to Christ God and man, to haue in himselfe really, & therefore proper to himselfe, the essential proprieties of each nature, both diuine and humaine.

Wherefore hereby is it manifest also, which before was said of the communication. For if this bee proper to the person of Christ, that these contraries, namely, to suffer, and not to be able to suffer, may truely and indeede bee said of him, and yet not simplie, but in respect of some other thing, that is in respect of his o∣ther nature: Then can it not agree to anie of both his natures seuerally, that the same na∣ture should truely and really be said, to be able to suffer and not to suffer, in it owne proper essence.

3 The proprieties of the natures which he said were proper to Christ: these hee taught to be made common in themselues, not indeed in the very natures themselues, but in his per∣son. For example: To susser which is proper to the humaine nature simplie and by it selfe in it owne essence, but proper to the person in respect of some other thing that is, onely in respect of the flesh: I say this essentiall propri∣etie of the flesh, by reason of the vnion, which the flesh hath with the deity it selfe in the same person, is made also cōmon to the verie diuine nature it selfe with the humaine: how cōmon? namely that to susser is truely attributed also to the diuine nature.

But how can that be, sith passion cannot fal into it? It is therefore common to it to suffer, not in the owne essence (for that nether could nor can suffer) but in Christ, that is, in the per∣son of Christ, which consisteth of the two na∣tures:

and therefore, which onely according to the flesh suffred: so that in the proper essence of the deitie thereis no passion, but it is onely in the common person by reason of the flesh: and consequently God is also said to haue suf∣fered, when notwithstanding the deitie suffred nothing, but onely the person of god & man, that is he which is God and man, suffred accor∣ding to the flesh. I will rehearse this againe. The proprieties (for example) of the humaine na∣ture, as to suffer, & to die, they are therefore said to be common to the deitie, because the deitie also hath them. For if in no sort it had thē: the same could be said no wayes to be made cō∣mon to it with the flesh.

Now then, they are truely said to be commō to the deitie with the humanitie, not simplie, but in Christ: because it hath them not in it selfe, that is, in the owne essence, as the flesh hath: but onely in the person of Christ, which is one and the same person of both the natures, seing it subsisteth in both of them.

The soule also hath the proprieties of the body, common vnto it selfe, not in it owne es∣sence, as the bodie: but in the person of man, who as he consisteth of them both, as being his essentiall partes, so also he hath in himselfe re∣ally the proprieties of them both: so as he may truely be said to be visible, and inuisible: mor∣tall and immortall.

This which is said of the proprieties of the humaine nature, common with the diuine, not

in the proper essence of it, but in the common person of both the natures; that the same also is to be thought and saide of the diuine proprie∣ties with the humaine, we are taught by Vigili∣us bishop and martyr.

These things being in very deed thus, it here∣upon is to bee gathered, what manner of spea∣ches may be thought agreeable to these mat∣ters. If a propriety of the flesh, as to suffer, be in some sort common to the deitie, thē it may in some sort be said of the deitie. If it bee not in such wise common to the same, as to haue it in it selfe, as in it owne essence, nor as an es∣sentiall parte of it selfe, nor as an accident in the subiect: then the deitie cannot bee said, in it owne essence, to bee subiect to passi∣on.

But if it bee common vnto it onely in per∣son: then to suffer cannot be said of the deitie in the abstract, but onely in the Concrete: this is, by such a worde, wherein the deitie maye bee so signified, as the person may bee signifi∣ed with it: such as bee the Concrete names as God.

For by this name, so farre forth as therein is signified, the person of Christ, which is also God, and not bare man, it is truely and really said that God did suffer, and died: yet not fim∣plie, and according to his deitie also, but one∣ly according to the flesh: whose propertie it is to suffer and to dye. Wherefore as this is most true, God suffered: so this is most

false, the deitie suffred: or that Christ also ac∣cording to his diuine nature suffred. This is the doctrine of Vigilius, and the whole church.

But seing, that which Vigilius hath deliue∣red, of the proprieties and communion of the natures, is indifferently said of all the propri∣eties and their communion in Christ: so that by this hypostaticall or personall vnion, the diuine proprieties are said to be made commō to the humanitie in the same sense, that the hu∣maine are to the diuinitie: namely not in the essences of the natures themselues, but onely in Christ and in the person of Christ: it follow∣eth, like as the proposition is impious, the deny, by reason of the vnion with the flesh in the person of the sonce of god, is made partaker of passion in it owne essence: so also this is blasphemous: the humaine nature, by reason of the vnion with the diuine, recei∣ueth of it, that it is omnipotent really, in it ovvne es∣sence, &c.

Now if we add that, which the same Vigili∣us left in writing out of the common consent of the whole church booke 4. chap. 4. this do∣ctrine, which we shewed euē now out of him, will more plainely appeare. For disputing a∣gainst the Monophysites (defenders of one na∣ture) he plainely prooueth, by the diuers pro∣prieties, which were seene in one & the same Christ, and which the holy Scriptures do speak of, that the word and the flesh cannot bee in him all one nature: he bringeth a reason, because one nature cannot receiue in it selfe any thing

that is contrary & diuers: besides other things he also writeth thus: Moreouer if there be but one nature of the word and of the flesh, how can it be but that the worde being in all places, the flesh must be foūd in al places too? For doubt∣lesse when it was on earth, then was it not in heauē, & now being in heauē, it is not likewise on earth: yea it is so farre from being on earth, as that according to it, we looke for Christ to come downe from heauen, whome according to the word we beleeue to bee with vs on earth. Therefore according to your opinions: either the word with his flesh is contained within one place: or the flesh with the word is in all places: whereas one nature cannot receiue in it selfe any contrarie or diuers things. But it is verie contrarie and farre different, to be circumscri∣bed or contained in one place, and, to be eue∣rie where: and seing the word is euerie where, and the flesh is not euerie where: it appeareth that one & the same Christ is of both natures: and that he is euerie where, according to the nature of his diuinitie, and is contained in a place, according to the nature of his humani∣tie: that he hath beene created, and hath no beginning: that he hath died, and hath not bin able to dye: the one he hath by the nature of the word, whereby he is God: the other by the nature of the flesh, whereby the same God is man. Wherefore, this one the sonne of God, & the same made the sonne of man, hath a begin∣ning, by the nature of his flesh, and hath no be∣ginning

by the nature of his diuinitie: he was created, by the nature of his flesh, and was not created, by the nature of his diuinitie: hee is circumscribed, by the nature of his flesh, and is not contained within place, by the nature of his diuinity: he is lesse also then the angels, by the nature of his flesh, and is equall to the father, according to the nature of his diuini∣tie: he died, by nature of his flesh, & died not, by nature of his diuinitie. This is the catholick faith and confession, which the Apostles deli∣uered, the Martyrs confirmed, and the faith∣full do yet assuredly hold. Thus saith Vigilius.

By this the very same is vndoubtedly proo∣ued, which was also by the other before, name∣ly, not onely that the worde and flesh, cannot possiblie be both of one nature, as the Mono∣physites affirmed: but also that the proprieties of the one nature, cannot really be communi∣cated to the other: so as indeed, it should haue the same in it selfe, and that the one nature should be made the very like, that the other is: as thus, that the flesh, by reason of the vnion with the word, should also with the same word, bee made present in all places, in it owne es∣seuce. For from this proposition, which is held for graunted, of all sound beleeuers, namely, The flesh through the vnion with the word, hath not gotten this proprietie of the word, that it selfe, should with the word be present in all places, in it owne sub∣stance: from this proposition (I say) he conclu∣deth, therefore neither is it made of the same

nature with the word. This certenly is the argu∣ment of Vigilius, yea of the whole catholicke church. What remaineth? onely this, that if it may be said to bee present in all places: it can be said to bee so, by no other meanes, then by the Hypostasie of it, which is the very word.

For in Christs humaine nature, there be on∣ly two things: the proper essence of his nature, with his proprieties and gifts created: and the common Hypostasis with the diuine, which is the word it selfe. His proper essence is finite or determinate, and so is onely within one place: The Hypostasis is infinite, immeasurable, and most simple or vnmixt. And therefore in this onely, and not in the proper essence, the flesh of Christ can be, and in verie deed is, present in all places.

That which hath bin said of this propriety: the same is also to be thought of all the rest, aswell those of the word, as of the flesh. For also in the argumēt before going, against the Mo∣nophysites, book 4. chap. 4. he concludeth the same, from certaine proprieties of the word, as is, to be vncreated, inuisible, vntouchable: & said, that it is impossible, the flesh should par∣take in those qualities. Hereuppon he conclu∣ded, therefore, the flesh cannot bee of one na∣ture with the word: sith it can by no meanes be made, inuisible, vncreated, vntouchable: vn∣derstand this in it owne essence: whereas not∣withstanding in the Hypostasis of it, which is common to it with the vvorde, it is in verie

deed, as in all places present, so also, vncrea∣ted, inuisible, vntouchable, and what not? se∣ing in the same Hypostasis it is also god. These things are all most assured and plaine, and do depend vpon that infallible rule, which he de∣liuered in the fift booke and second chapter: namely, We saye better and more catholically: it is common in him, and not vnto him: And we say bet∣ter, it is proper to him, and not in him.

I beseech all christians, by our Lord Iesus, that setting aside all the vaine dreames of pri∣uate men: and reiecting all the affections, ha∣treds, enmities of their flesh: and imbracing, the assured and wholesome doctrine of the aū∣cient church, and christian loue: wee maye all ioyne together into one holy league of friend∣ship: euen as we haue all one God, one medi∣atour, one baptisme, one hope of our vocati∣on: to the glorie of Gods name, the building vp of the church, & the saluation of our soules. For sooner then we suppose; shall wee be sum∣moned before Christs tribunall seate, that e∣uerie one may giue account for that, which he hath done in the bodie, and in this life: seing that after this life, there is no hope of pardon, no place for amendment.