An exhortation to brotherly communion betwixt the Protestant churches written by ... John Davenant ...

Of the Person of Christ, and Communi∣cation of his Properties.

IT is easie to shew out of their Wri∣tings, who have handled this Con∣troversie, that there is a full Consent betwixt Reformed Churches, concer∣ning Fundamentalls, and that the whole Bickering is either about cer∣taine manners of speech, which are not founded in the Scriptures themselves, or about consequences, which some af∣firme, others denie, that they can be rightly inferred out of the Scriptures; meane time the Fundamentalls, being safe on both sides, although all errour be not excluded about things not Fun∣damentall. The truth of this Assertion will appeare:

First, if with a sincere and prudent

Judgement we ponder all those things, in which those who wrangle about o∣ther matters, yet acknowledge there is one Consent and Harmony of all Pro∣testant Churches. James Andrews reckons up seven Propositions, of all which he confesseth there is no Con∣troversie betwixt the Churches. Also Beza recites certaine heads of doctrine, of the Person of Christ, and Commu∣nication of his Properties, in all which, it is evident, That all Protestant Di∣vines doe Consent. Not many yeeres since the Conference at Lipsigh, cer∣taine famous Divines summ'd all these Points up to twelve Articles, in which there is unanimous consent of the Communication of the Person of Christ, and his Properties. In these things wherein we have the opinions of all Protestant Churches so well a∣greeing, I dare not say, that nothing is wanting which belongs to knowledge in divinity, yet I confidently affirme, That there is nothing deficient which pertaines to the Catholike Faith, no∣thing which is necessary to be knowne, and beleeved to the Salvation of a

Christian man; Lastly, nothing which argues either these, or those to have started asunder from the Foundation, or that they ought to start from mutu∣all Communion. If therefore in this Controversie of the Person of Christ, and Properties of his Natures, there re∣maine some knotty things, which are more smoothly to be explained; Let Divines afford their helping hand to this matter, and not for this thing rend their Churches in pieces; Let them kindly bring back their wandring Brethren into the way, let them not furiously break asunder the bands of Brotherly Unity: Let them build up∣on the fundamentall Doctrines their owne Gold, Silver, or Pretious stones, and let them throw downe the hay, and stubble built up by others; Let them not thrust downe others from the Foundation, nor disjoynt themselves from those whom they themselves see stick fast to the Foundation, and Fun∣damentall Articles.

Secondly, what hath been said of the joynt Consent in Fundamentalls, may be plainly seene, if we weigh all

those Heresies that ever opposed the Fundamentall Articles of the Person of Christ, and overturned the Founda∣tion of mans salvation. For they who damne, and curse all these, cannot be accused of violating the Foundation, except by Slander, cannot be con∣demned but by high injustice. But now it is well knowne, that no Heresie can be reckoned up, whether ancient or moderne, against which all the Prote∣stant Churches are not most ready to bring their voice to condemne them.

In the Conference at Lipsigh (where∣of we have often made mention for the hope it gave to us of renewing of uni∣ty) all the speakers with joynt consent, and from their whole heart did damne and reject all errours of ancient and later Arians, Nestorians, Eutichians, Monothelites, Marcionites, Photinians, and by what other names soever they be called: On the other side, with mouth and heart they gave their con∣sent to the Apostolicall, Nicene, and Athanasian Creed. He that in this man∣ner approves all Points received and allowed of the Ancient Church, con∣cerning

the Person of Christ, and pro∣perties of both his Natures, rejects all things condemned of the same, may perchance in manner of speech retaine a forme of words not very sound, or in some consequences, may make a small swerving from the Truth, but cannot make a departure from the foundation, or fundamental Doctrine of the Catho∣like Church; seeing Melanct. said right∣ly, That opinions unknown to the ancient church, although at this time they be generaly received yet are no Doctrines of the Catholik Church: much lesse such Fundamentall doctrines, as are of force before God to break the Peace & Unity of Churches.

Thirdly, in this matter of the Person of Christ, and communication of his Properties, that those things are not fundamentall, which as yet hang unde∣cided may appear, from the very terms and words, which Divines are constrai∣ned to use to expresse their opinion. For in fundamentalls, we heare Plaine & cleer propositions: such as these are.

In Christ God and Man, the humane and divine nature, are most neerly cou∣pled together: each nature in Christ

hath, and retaines its owne pro∣prieties.

The proprieties of one nature, can never be made the proprieties of ano∣ther nature. In the person of Christ, there is a Communication of Properties, by which that is attributed, and ascribed to the whole Person, which is proper to one of his natures? As when we say, God was crucified for us, or, the Man Christ is Omnipotent.

In this Communication, the divine nature neither powreth forth the pro∣perties of its Divinity, nor infuseth them into the humane nature.

These and all other things, which are cleerly spoken of the Person of Christ, and Communication of his Properties are contradicted by none. But those things which are conceived, and infol∣ded in strange, forreign, and doubtfull termes, beget strifes upon strifes, and questions upon questions. Such are those Problems, Whether the proprie∣ties of the Natures, in the Person of Christ be communicated only verbally, or really; Whether they bee commu∣nicated in the abstract, or the concrete,

and others of the same stampe: which, by the very sound of the words, doe appeare to have sprung out of the Schoole of Grammarians and Logici∣ans, not of the Apostles, and ancient Fathers, and therefore not to bee re∣counted in the number of fundamen∣talls.

But let us adde some few things of the questions themselves. That some affirme that this question is propoun∣ded, Whethere there be such an Union of natures in the person of Christ, in which neither nature communicates any thing to the other, besides the bare name; they seem to me to feigne a que∣stion which never was betwixt the pro∣testant Churches. For with one voice they confesse; That such is the Union of the natures in the Person of Christ, in which many things are communica∣ted to the humane Nature, yea all things, although excellent gifts, whereof a created nature can be a sub∣ject capable to receive them. And e∣ven as no Protestant, corrupteth this Proposition, The Man Christ is God, with this wicked Interpretation, The

Man Christ hath the bare, and empty title of God. So neither doe any deprave this proposition, The Man Christ is omnipo∣tent, with this perverse exposition, The Man Christ is in word only or title Omni∣potent: but acknowledgeth the matter it selfe, which is signified in this Prae∣dicate, truly, and really to agree to the Man Christ, because it truly agrees to his person, which the terme Man doth designe and denote. They which on the other side defend, that it is not on∣ly truly said, of the Man Christ, that he is Omnipotent, Omniscient, &c. but also that of the humane nature of Christ, that the same is Omnipotent, Omniscient, &c. yet doe so temper, and explaine this their opinion, that they deny these divine properties to bee powered into the humane nature, or ever become properties fixed, and setled in the hu∣mane nature; and determine them only by the personall Union, and ex∣altation that followed upon it, to be attributed to him in his Person, and not severally. If there be any difference, betwixt these Opinion, it is so subtle, so farre removed from the capacity,

and cōmon understanding of Christian people, that it cannot be in the number of fundamentall Doctrines, except we will faine a new kinde of fundamen∣talls, hitherto unknown, and unheard of to the Catholike Church, and people of God.

As concerning other questions, which those foure words, have bred unto us, Verbally, Really, in the Concrete, in the Abstract, we may freely say, such termes of Art ought not to enter into the articles of the Christian Faith; from the knowledge wherof depends, the life and Salvation, not only of learned men, and Logicians, but of the unlearned, and of all common Christians: Moreover, it is little suteable, that we should seek fundamentall Doctrines in Propositi∣ons, as long, as it is not agreed on, of the sense and signification of the termes, which are used in the framing of them. But what comes to be understood, under the name of Concrete, what under the name of Abstract, could not be consented on, betwixt James Andrewes, and Theodore Beza, neither as yet doe the Divines of both sides

well agree in the signification of these words, when they are referred to Christ. Therefore it is enough for the retaining of Unity betwixt Churches, that all acknowledge the Communica∣tion of Properties, not to be verball, but reall, so farre forth as that the same and one only Person to whom it is attri∣buted, is truly and really God, is also truly and really man, and therefore things may really be predicated of God which belong to Man, and of the Man Christ, which belong to God.

But if we should change the name of God, into Godhead; or Man, into Manhood; all also will acknowledge, that the Propositions are not to be re∣ceived with the same certainty; None will doubt of this Proposition.

God was Crucified for our sins:

But if it be thus altered.

The Godhead or Divine Nature was Crucified for our sins,

It will afford occasion, not only of doubting, but of being deceived. So this Proposition is placed, without the reach of all question.

The Man Christ is omnipotent, om∣nipresent, &c.

But if the word Man, be changed in∣to the word Manhood, as to say,

The Manhood or humane nature of Christ is omnipotent, omnipresent, &c. it will not appeare so plainly, to the Orthodox in their Judgement.

Augustine sheweth us the light, to frame and understand such Propositi∣ons, made of Christ, God, and Man, almost in every book. Let the places noted on the margin be consulted with. Also Luther himselfe in Hospinian, hath many things most worthy to bee consi∣dered, of the Person of Christ, and communication of his Attributes, and most to the purpose, for the true un∣derstanding of this question: I will adde this one thing, that those two Propo∣sitions,

The Man Christ is God, The God Christ is Man.

Which are the foundation of all the rest, in which this communication of Attri∣butes (whereof the strife is) is made, are above and against all rules of Lo∣gicians and Philosophers. In vaine therefore doe we leane to the conse∣quencies of Logick, when we endeavor,

to annex other new fundamentalls unto them: we doe it in tearing and rending the unity of the Churches, when they cannot see alike the force of such con∣sequencies. For those which acknow∣ledge and embrace the truth of all fun∣damentals, in this question about the Person of Christ, are not to be cast off from other Churches, for every error in the manner of speech, or ignorance in the manner of inferring or deducing of consequencies. Now in the last place, let us briefely see what is to be determined in that controversie, which is about divine Predestination.

Notes

• Pag. 18.
• Pag. 20.
• Pag. 5.6.
• Pag. 10.
• Apud. Lu∣therum, Tom. 1^o. in disp. p. 441. B.
• Colloq. Mompel. pag. 222. &c. & 22••.
• Tom. 2. vide Epist. 102. & Tom. 6. contra Ser. Arian. tom. 7. De Pecc. mer. lib. 1. c. 31, & tom. 10. S.N. 14. de verbis Dom. Hist. Sacra. vart. 2. pag. 15, 16, 17. 18.