To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THe Apostle writeth, that Christ was raised from the dead and therefore he truely di∣••••••••••d in another place, The Lord of glory was 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yea we often read, howe the sonne of
man was deliuered vnto death. But in all these e∣nunciations, the speach is ever of the same per∣son, namely the sonne of God incarnate. Ther∣fore the person of Christ which is in these pro∣positions the subiect, or that whereof another thing is spoken, is vsed to be signified by 3. kindes of names: namely, by those which be∣token the divine nature onely, and that some∣time in respect of the essence, sometime in re∣spect of the hypostasie or persons: as, The lord of glory, the onely begotten sonne of God: or which betoken in like sort the humaine nature one∣ly, as, Man, the sonne of Mary: or which betokē both natures togither, as, Christ, Immanuell, god incarnate.
We adde herevnto that Christs verie persō is signified by those names also which are ta∣ken from the offices of a mediatour: as these, Amediatour, a Redeemer, a Saviour, a high priest an Advocate and such like. But these may be referred to the third kind: because by them are shewed and made known both the natures in one person.
The concrete names which haue denomi∣nation of the natures, as Man of the humanity, and God of the diety, when in speaking of Christ they be the subiects, or the first part of the e∣nunciation or sentence, they haue two signifi∣cations, one formall (as the schooles say) and the other materiall: of which, by the former is
meant the verie nature, by the other, the per∣son, which hath such a nature, whereof it ta∣keth denomination.
For as names in the abstract do signifie on∣ly the nature and propriety, which is in a thing so all names in the concreat doe betokē both the nature and qualitie, which is in the thing, and the hypostasis, wherein it is: as (for exam∣ples sake) the name of Iust betokeneth both Iustice wher with one is made iust, & him, which is Iust, both together.
Therefore by these Subiect names which hauing their denominations from the natures do shewe the person of Christ: sometimes is declared the propriety of the natures, some∣time the vnity of the person: and therefore the Subiects must be vnderstood and expounded according to the diversities of the Praedicates that is of those things, which are spoken there∣of.
In this proposition, the sonne of God is eter∣nall: the subiect (namely the sonne of God) must be expounded according to the proprietie of the nature. But in this, the onely begotten sonne of God suffered: the subiect (the onely begotten sonne of God) must be vnderstood according to the vnity of the person. For he suffered, which was not onely man, but also God: yet the dietie re∣maining vnpassible.
We denie not, but manie times are found wordes in the abstract, which are the Subiects, as, (the light) came into the world: as also some which are Predicats, as Christ is (the light of the world, our righteousnesse, our peace:) but these st••̄d in steade of concretiues, as the light came in∣to the world, that is, he which lighteneth vs. Wherefore for the manner of such like words, they are to be referred to some of the foresaid three kindes.
Furthermore there are three kindes of attri∣butes which vse to be spoken of the same per∣son of Christ God and man, by what name so∣euer it be signified. For some are propper to the divine nature, and therefore cannot really be communicated to the other nature: as, to be impassible, eternall, immeasurable. Some are proper to the humaine nature, and there∣fore cannot altogether indeede be communi∣cated to the other nature, as, to be made, to be finite, and passible. And other some propper to the wholle person consisting of both natures, and therefore common to both natures toge∣ther, as, to be a mediatour, a redeemer, a Saui∣our.
To this third kind pertaine those actions which the greeke Fathers called the actions of God & mā, or actions divine and humaine: be∣cause in the workes of our redemption, each
forme worketh not the property of the other, but of it selfe, yet with the communion of the other: the worde working that which belong∣eth to the word, & the flesh performing that which belongeth to the flesh.
Of these three kinds of Atributes, we find in our selues an example not vnlike. For in a man, some thinges are proper onely to the soule: as, to be immortall, to vnderstand, to wil: sōe thinges to the body only, as, to be mor∣tall, palpable, heauy. Some things common to them both, as be such works, to the performāce whereof, each part worketh that which is pro∣per to it, with communion of the other: as, to write, to speake, to runne, and to doe whatso∣euer is done by the ministery of the body, yet not without the vertue and guidance of the soule.
Nowe of this which hath beene saide of the diuers Subiects & Praedicats, there followeth a diuersitie also of Praedicatiō. Euery Praedica∣tion therefore of Christ is either proper and simple, or els improper and figuratiue.
The proper and simple Prędication falleth two waies; one is, when those thinges which are proper to one nature, they are predicated or said of the person of Christ, beeing expres∣sed by a name either denominated of the same nature, or proper to the person: as, this our God,
or Christ is omnipotent, and euery vvhere present: also, this man, or Christ, suffered and died. The o∣ther is, when such things as are proper to the wholle person, they are said also of the wholle person signified by a name, that containeth both the natures: such as these are that belong to the office of a mediatour, and the honour of an head: as: Christ, Imanuell, God incarnate, re∣deemed vs, sanctified vs, saued vs, is a King, to be vvorshipped: which are said therefore to be pro∣per to the person, because they can be seueral∣ly applied to neither of the natures. Nowe all such be proper and simple propositions: be∣cause in all which are of the same kinde, the Praedicates be coupled with the Subiects in all those thinges which are of the verie same kinde.
The improper and figuratiue praedication is likewise twofold: one, whē as these things which are proper to the wholle person, either belonging to the office of a mediatour, or to the honour of an head, the same are saide of on of the natures signified either by an ab∣stractiue or a concretiue name: As, the flesh quic∣keneth, the blood washeth from sinne, God redeemed the Church, the Mediatour of god and men, Man, &c.
The other, when that which is proper to one nature is said of the other nature signified by a name which is concretiue, and which be to∣keneth the person: as, God suffered and died: man
when he was on earth, was also at the same time in heauen.
For in th••se improper propositions of the lat∣ter sort, the proprieties of diuerse kindes are coupled as wordes concretiue: and therfore god is vnproperly said to suffer, in as much as the name God in it owne propper signification doth betoken the divine essence which cannot suffer: but in respect of the person being meant, which is also man, it is a true (though an improper) pro∣positiō: & therefore these things are said of the wholle person by a Synechdoche, whereas in∣deede they agree not to the same, but onelie in respect of one nature.
This latter forme of an improper speech we call the cōmunity of proprieties, as the greeks doe: which Theodoret expounding calleth the communitie of names. And Damascene, the troope of retribution.
For with them 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was a concretiue worde signifying, the proprietie of some na∣ture. And 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was, when as the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or proprieties of one nature, were mutually and reciprocally spoken of the concrete name of the other nature, which name did signifie the person: so that it is meere folly, to thinke that the Fathers when they spake of the comnication of the Idiomes, that they meant to speake of any reall powe∣ring
or communication of the essentiall pro∣prieties of one nature, into the other: seing they write plainely: the vnitie maketh the names common, but neuer maketh the things common.
For if our talke be of the natures themselus, * 1.1 which are in Christ: Theodoret with other fa∣thers, teacheth vs, that wee must so speake, as we do not saye, that those which are proper to the one nature, are in very deed common to the other: but that wee giue to either of them alone, that which belongeth to it. Euen as that which belongeth to the soule, wee giue it not to the body, and contrary wise. But if we speak of the person, we must so frame our speach, that we may declare those things which are proper to each nature to bee truely and indeed com∣mon to the whole person: euen as also we giue to the whole man really and in trueth, aswell those things which belong to the soule, as to the bodie.
Now his very wordes after his bringing in of the similitude of the soule and the body & the whole man follow thus: So we must speake of Christ. And when we speake of the natures in Christ, wee must geue to each of them those things, which do befitt each, & we must know, what things are proper to the diuinitie, & what to the humanitie, but whenas we speake of the person, we must make those things, which are proper to the nature common: and must fitt these verie same to our Sauiour Christ: and we
must call him both God and man; both the sonne of God, and the sonne of man; both the sonne of Dauid and the Lord of Dauid; both the seede of Abraham and the creatour of A∣braham: and so of all the rest.
The same doctrine he also confirmeth out of Amphilochius bishop of Iconium, and out of other fathers, in many places in his dialogues.
Damascene also to expound the same matter, to wit, how the same thinges which belong to one nature should be communicated to the o∣ther, namely in person: writeth thus: The word doth approprsate vnto it selfe those things which be∣long to man. For those thinges which pertaine to his holy flesh be his: and he doth (by a manner of mutuall praedication) impart those things which are proper to himselfe, vnto the flesh, by reason of the being of the partes mutually one within the other, and their hypo∣staticall or personall vnion.
Out of which place it euidently appeareth, first, that those things which are of the flesh are no lesse giuen to the word, then the things of the word, to the flesh: then, that they which belong to the word, are giuen to the flesh after no other manner, then they which pertaine to the flesh, are giuen to the word: lastlie, that this manner of giuing is called the manner of mutuall pradica∣tion, not simplie and in the abstractiue names of the natures, but in the concretiue noting the per∣son.
Moreouer what this manner of praedication is, and why it is so called, the same Damascene expoundeth in the 4. chapter both by example, and by the cause in these wordes: This manner of mutuall praedication is, vvhen those things vvhich are proper to one nature, are spoken of the other na∣ture, by reason of the hypostaticall identitie or perso∣nall vnion of them both; and for that the one nature is in the other: for example vvee may say of Christ, this our god was seene vpon the earth and conuersed with men: and this man is vncreated, not subiect to passion, not circumscribed in any place.
And the examples added doe manifestlie shewe howe one nature doeth attribute those things which are proper vnto it selfe to the o∣ther, and for what cause: For God, (in that, by this name is ment the diuine essence) was not seene on earth: but onely, in that the person is ment by it, which is both God and man.
Therefore we mislike not that receiued des∣cription of the communicating of proprieties.
The communication of the proprieties, is a praedication, wherein the proprietie agreeable to one nature, is giuen to the person in a name concrete: because these two natures, the vvorde and the humane nature taken, are one existence or person.
Thus therefore we iudge that the communi∣cation of the properties may not amisse be de∣fined:
the communication of the proprieties, is a praedication, or a manner of speach: wherein the proprietie (that is the concrete name signi∣fying the proprietie of one nature) is spoken really of Christs person signified by the name of the other nature: and is spoken (onely in worde) of the other nature, in the concrete, by reason of the coniunction of the natures & the personall vnion thereof.
But we say it is all one to be praedicated or said of the person signified by the cōcrete name of the other nature: and to be said of the con∣crete name of the other nature signifying the person: as also the proprietie, and the concrete name signifying the proprietie of the one na∣ture, are in this matter alone.
For this question was propounded by the fathers against the heretikes, not so much a∣bout the things themselues, as about the man∣ners of speaking, which the holy scripture vseth speaking of Iesus Christ: when sometime it saieth: The Lord of glorie vvas crucified: some∣time, The sonne of man vvhen he vvas on earth, vvas also in heauen: and other such like: name∣ly, how such phrases should be vnderstood.
For none of any sound iudgemēt euer doub∣ted but as the natures, so also the essentiall pro∣prieties of both the natures remained distinct, whole, and vnconfounded in the person of
Iesus Christ after the vnion: so as (for example sake) neither the deitie was made passible and locall, nor the humanitie impassible, and vn∣circumscribed: as some heretickes falsifying the scriptures haue blasphemed.
Now the very foundation of this whole ex∣position was the true and neere vniting of the two natures within themselues, and a meeting of them into one and the same person vnspea∣kably made without conuersion, without confusion, without diuision, without separa∣tion,
For Damascene declaring this after he had taught, how those things which are of the flesh, are giuen to the vvorde, and likewise how the things of the word are communicated to the flesh, namely, according to this manner of praedica∣••ation: he adioyneth the cause thereof, saying: by reason of the meeting together of the partes one with the other: and the hypostaticall or personall vni∣on: & in the 4. chapter. This is the manner (saith he) of mutuall predication, vvhenas one nature doth giue the proprieties of one nature to the other which it doth in respect of the personall identitie, & the ioy∣ning of the natures one with the other.
Now this ioyning of the natures one with the other, is the very vnion, that is an inward, absolute and most perfect vniting them toge∣ther. As Damascene both els where, & especi∣ally in his 4. booke and 19. chapter expoūdeth
it, saying: But the diuine nature once going through the flesh, gaue vnto the flesh also, an vnspeakable go∣ing to the diuine nature: vvhich vvee call the vni∣on.
We our selues add, that this vnion is also the finall cause of this forme of speaking: be∣cause therefore this reciprocall praedication is deliuered in the holie scripture, that the true vnitie of the natures in one person of Iesus Christ might be shewed: which is the cause, why these verball praedications can by no meanes be said to be vaine or to no purpose: seing they haue great vse, shewing how the two natures are vnited into one person with∣out confusion.
Moreouer, this same communication of the proprieties (for example, in this proposition God was crucified,) we say to be both verball, and reall, in diuers respects. For in that, by this con∣crete word, (God) is ment a person, which is not onely God, but also man; it is a reall predicati∣on. For because he was man, therefore he tru∣ly and indeed died. But as the deitie is meant by the formall signification, (as they speake) or as God simply is meant thereby: it is a ver∣ball praedication, and that a true one. For god is truely said to haue died, by reason of the person togither meant: and that, which is God indeed died not, nor could die, although he which is God did truely die.
These thinges thus declared: it is easie to iudge of the diuers enunciations, which be tru, and which false, and in what manner of Prae∣dication each one is to be taken. Neither one nature nor the proprieties thereof can by any meanes neither in the abstractiue name nor in the concretiue be predicated or spoken of the other nature signified in the abstractiue. For it is as false to say, The humaine nature, or the humanity, is God: as to say, The humanity is the dietie. And as false to say, the humanity is im∣measurable and infinite: as to say, the humanity is very immeasurablenesse or infinitenes.
Therefore in all the scriptures is no such kind of speech to be found.
Neither can one nature or the proprieties thereof be spoken in the abstract, of the other nature signified either in an abstractiue or con∣cretiue name. For both these propositions are false. God is the humanity, and, the Deity is the humanity.
Of either of the natures signified by what name soeuer, the thinges that are proper there∣vnto may truely be spoken: and that of them both in the concrete: but of the diuine in the abstract also, by reason of the simplicity there∣of. For this proposition is as true and proper, he deity is omnipotent, as this God is omnipotēt, yea
euen omnipotency it selfe. And againe, Humanity and a man is mutable.
Of the person expressed by the proper name and that name, [Rule. 4] which noteth both the natures, or by a name signifying the office of a media∣tour; as well the things which are proper to the one or to the other, or to both the natures to∣gether, may truely and properly be spoken: as, Christ is omnipotent: also, Christ is man, Christ died. Also, Christ is a redeemer, a mediatour. Also, the mediator, is God, is man, is immortall, died, redeemed vs.
Of the person signified by a name of one nature: [Rule. 5] the things which are proper therevnto may truely and properly be spoken: as, This God or onely begotten sonne of God, is eternall and omnipotent. Also, This man, or, the sonne of man, was borne in the last daies, [Rule. 6] died.
Those things which are proper to the wholle person, cannot be spoken (but by a Synechdo∣che, a part taken for the wholle:) of one nature signified either by an abstractiue or concre∣tiue name: as The flesh quickeneth, God redeemed his Church.
Wherefore this saying of Leo, each forma worketh that which belongeth to it selfe, we with Damas. say, to be all one, with this, (and that properly) Christ worketh according to each forme.
So where Iohn said: his blood washeth vs from sinne, and Christ saith, my flesh is meate indeede: also where it is said to quicken, and that it is to be worshipped: those wordes are put for concre∣tiues: namely, the flesh of Christ, for Christ incar∣nate: and the blood of Christ, for Christ by his blood.
For he which said, he that eateth my flesh hath eternall life: the same said, He that eateth me, he shall liue by me. And he which writ, his bloode wa∣sheth vs from sinne: the same expounding him∣selfe saith, Christ shall wash vs from our sinnes by his blood. And they which taught that Christs flesh was to be worshipped: they also expressed the cause, namely, not because it was flesh, but be∣cause it was flesh of God: and therefore that Christians do worship not flesh properly. but God incarnate.
Of the person signified by the name of the one nature, [Rule. 7] the things that belong to the other nature may indeede truely and really be spo∣ken, but yet improperly, and figuratiuely, by communicatiō of the proprieties, As, the sonne of man it both in heauen and on earth at once. Also, the onely begotten, and Lord of glory was crucified. * 1.2
Here of followeth another: of the one nature signified in a concretiue name, the thinges propper to the other may truely be spoken, by reason of the person togither noted: yet not
really, but onely in respect of the name: As, God (taken in the formall signification) died: man is eternall,
Wherefore we say that those thinges are praedicated or spoken, by communication of the proprieties which beeing proper to one of the natures, are made common also to the o∣ther in the concrete, by the mutuall manner of praedication: namely while they are really attributed to the person, wereof each nature is a part.
For seeing Christ most truely and really is both God and man: we doubt not to say, and with the wholle Church to teach, that he suffe∣red, namely (for example sake) according to the one nature, and suffered not, namely accor∣ding to the other.
And seeing the scripture saith, both that God is immortall, & also that the same died & was crucified: we teach that in the former speech the name of God is taken essentially, in the latter hypostatically or personally, and therefore that both these are true in the speach concer∣ning Christ: but that both of them are spoken of the same in a diuerse manner of praedicatiō.
Whatsoeuer things we reade to haue beene really giuen to Christ in time after the vnion: the same may truely and really be spoken of
the person, in respect of the humanitie, & ther∣fore also of the humanitie it selfe, but it is to be vnderstood, that they cannot be spoken in re∣spect of the divinity, and being signified by a concrete name, but onely by communication of the proprieties. An example of the first. E∣sai. 11. the spirit of wisdome shall rest vpon him &c. An example of the other, Ioh. 3. He hath giuen vnto him (his sonne, who is from heauen, whōe the father sent) his spirit aboue measure. For he (as he is the onely begotten sonne) cannot be said to haue really receiued the spirit, but one∣ly by communication of the proprieties.
But the thinges which we confesse were gi∣uen after this manner: were not the essentiall proprieties of God but onely gifts of creation, and (as they call thē) habituall graces which belong partly to the perfection of Christs hu∣maine nature: partely to the perfecting of the office of a mediatour: partely to the honour of the head of the Church.
For the essentiall proprieties of God are v∣nited most really with the humaine nature in the same person: but they are not really com∣municated to it, in it owne verie essence.
For (to omitte almost infinite of other rea∣sons & testimonies of the Apostles & aūcient Fathers) what things Christ receiued, as Man, in the essence of his humaine nature: he re∣ceiued
the same, that he might as beeing head deriue thē into his mēbers: as Athanasius & Cyril are witnesses: seing he therefore sanctifi∣ed himselfe, that we also might be sanctified: and the oile was powered vpon Aarons head, that it might runne downe on al his members euen to the skirts of his clothing.
And who (except a mad man) would saie that the essentiall proprieties of God are deri∣ued vnto vs.
The cause also why Christ as he is God, cā∣not be said to haue receiued gifts of creation, is by Cyrill assigned to be this, Because as God he needed them not. Therefore, if also, as he is mā, he receiued the essentiall proprieties of God, really communicated vnto him: he cannot then be said to haue receiued the created gifts of the holy ghost. For to that ende ser∣ueth a finite power in him which is indued with an infinite power really communica∣ted vnto him.
Theod. di•• 3. p. 67. B.
8. Rule.