CCR: Appendix

AN APPENDIX TO THE ELEVENTH CHAPTER OF CHRIST THE REDEEMER OR OF THE PERSON OF CHRIST

They which write that the essential proprieties of the divine nature are really communicated to the human nature, not that they be in the same, either essentially and formally, or subjectively and habitually, but only by the reason and respect of the personal or hypostatical union (for so they speak, darkly indeed and ambiguously when both they might and ought to speak plainer); if they mean this in no other sense than as Vigilius wrote and thought–namely, that the proprieties of the nature are made proper to Christ Himself, but are common to the natures betwixt themselves, not in themselves but in Christ, that is, in His person, I will not surely gainsay them, neither do I think that any good or learned man will gainsay them. For Vigilius according to the Catholic Church’s doctrine, speaking out of the council at Calcedon, said and declared that the proprieties of the human nature were made common to the divine, in the very same sense that the divine are also said to be communicated to the human. But now these proprieties of the humanity, as to suffer or to die, are so communicated to the Deity that for all that, yet the very Deity is not made in very deed, passible(?) or mortal; the cause whereof Vigilius setteth down to be this: namely, because to die and to suffer, are not made common to the Deity but only in the person, so that they cannot truly be said, but of the human nature by itself, and of the person in respect of the human nature.

Wherefore we must even so think and say altogether of the communication of the divine proprieties. Vigilius’ own words be these book 5, chap. 2.

And now since our intention has chiefly been against those, which following the error of one nature, do with a willful obstinacy resist the decree of the Calcedon counsel, I think it not amiss for the removing of their vain contradictions, and beating to pieces their glassy(?) opinions with the mallet of truth, to rehearse some few things concerning the human nature of the Son of God, which they every way deny to be in Him; and to show what want of Christianity is in them, and how far off they be from the hope of everlasting life. It is a rule of the Catholic faith to confess one and the same Lord Jesus Christ as true God, so also true man; one of them both, and not two into one; the same without all time born of the Father, the same in time born of the virgin, so that each of these births do so hold on Christ that He suffered not any loss in either; retaining in Himself that was proper to Him both ways, that is, that the nature of the Word should not be changed in the flesh, and the nature of the flesh was not swallowed up in the Word. Hereupon the same Lord Jesus Christ is true God, and the same, true man, existing unspeakably of two natures, united together in one person in the virgin’s womb; which natures, seeing that in this wonderful co-union they are not abolished in Him; to show a plain extance [existence ?] and appearance of the propriety of them both in Himself being one, He did and spake things belonging to both; nor dividing the words, nor parting the aspects, nor separating 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 plain which we have said, let us use an example as thus: I myself am he, which with my bodily eyes do behold a white color or a black; and again I am he, which by sight of my mind do judge of the evil of iniquity, and the good of righteousness. Yet notwithstanding, I am not now divers persons, because I do both these in a diverse respect. For I do not see the difference of colors, with the same eyes, with which I see the diversity of speeches; and yet I am the very same which do this both the ways. Both are in me not to see righteousness but only with the eyes of my mind, and it is in me not to see colors, but only with the eyes of my flesh. And it is in me not to hear words with my eyes, and in me not to see light with my ears; in me not to judge of tastes with my nose, and in me not to perceive smelling at my mouth. And whereas it is wholly mine own propriety in myself to see, to hear, to smell, to taste; and yet it is one thing in me whereby I see; another whereby I hear; another whereby I taste or smell. And all this being in me wholly, and yet in a certain private respect divided and diverse. I myself notwithstanding cannot be divided or separated, so therefore Christ Himself also, being one and the same, created, and not created; having beginning, and being without beginning; growing in age and understanding and receiving no increase of age and understanding; suffering death and not yielding to the laws of death; receiving honor for His desert, yet having need of Roman’s honor; and all these things being divers [diverse] in Him, yet are merely proper unto Himself. And therefore He divideth not in Himself the words, affects, and deeds, agreeable both ways in Himself, because both are properly His own; yet having one propriety by the nature of the Word, which remaining God, He lost not; and another by the nature of the flesh, which, being made man, He received. We will yet speak more to confirm more plainly this one nature, for their sakes which through their unsaid skillfulness, not understanding the propriety and communion of the natures, how it is said to be in Christ, do abuse and utterly refuse the same words.

It is diverse and another thing, not to have beginning, and to subsist by a beginning; to die, and not to be able to suffer. Yet, as they are both proper unto Christ, so are they both common, not unto Him but in Him. For if we say, common unto Him, we must needs be urged and driven to give and show some other, with whom,the same should be common unto Him; which necessity of instance cannot but incline to the impious opinion of Nestorius. We therefore better and more catholically say, it is common in Him and not to Him; and so we say better, it is proper to Him and not in Him. Therefore it is proper to Him to die by the nature of His flesh, which is mortal; and it is proper to Him not to die, by the nature of the Word, which cannot die. Likewise, by the unspeakable mystery of the union of both the natures, the mortality of the flesh was common in Him, to the nature of the Word, which could not die. And the immortality of the Word was common in Him, to the nature of the flesh which yielded to death. Therefore as it is proper unto Him in respect of both natures to die and not to die; so it is common in Him, in both natures, to do that which is their propriety. And as I may (for example’s sake) say, it is proper to me to carry the mark of the blackness of a stroke in my body, by the nature of my flesh; so it is proper to me to carry the stripe of a word, that is, of some hard speech in my mind, by the nature of my soul. And it is also proper to me not to carry the same stripe of words in my body by the nature of my flesh. And since both these are proper to me, and both of them different from my body and from my soul; because neither my body understandeth any hard or any pleasing speeches, neither can my soul be made black by the stroke of a whip. Yet both these are common in myself, both to my soul and to my body, because neither my soul placed out of my body doth feel that which is proper to it to feel; nor my body without the company of my soul can carry the marks of the blows. That, therefore, which is proper unto me in either of them and yet different from neither of them; that is common in my whole self to either of them, which is proper to either of them.

And yet I am the very 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 fitly be said for the deciding of this present controversy, of the real communication of the proprieties? For this whole treatise of Vigilius is resolved into these special propositions, pertaining to our cause. For setting first down a rule of the Catholic faith, which in the text is marked with the letter A; then from the same he draweth certain positions by which he manifestly confuteth the heresy of Eutyches. The sum of that rule of faith is this: that one and the same Christ is God and man; and both natures are kept whole in Him. Out of this rule Vigilius gathered these positions.

1. The Lord Jesus Christ is the same true God, and the same true man. The reason: for He existeth of two natures, (the divine and the human) unspeakably joined and united together in one person, and that in the virgin’s womb. This is against Nestorius; against Eutyches, is added another position.

2. These natures in that wonderful co-union, are not abolished in Christ. The confirmation followeth by the life of Christ, because the Lord Jesus, both by His sayings and deeds, did show that the proprieties of both the natures remained safe and whole in Him. Therefore He addeth.

3. To show an extancie (that is, an existence) of the proprieties of them both in Himself being one, namely, that the proprieties of both the natures did exist distinct in Him, He spake and did things of both natures Himself being one. This is also against Eutyches.

But how? Namely so, that he showed how these sayings and deeds were not the actions of two persons, but of one. Therefore against Nestorius he also addeth: “Not in making a diversity in words, or showing sundry aspects, or separating the deeds, but He Himself being one, speaking and doing in Himself and by both (that is by both natures) that which was agreeable and was proper to both the natures.”

By these words we may perceive these two things as clear as the noon day: One, that there were not in Christ two which did work and will, and understand, but only one; namely the very Word incarnate, which is called Christ. Therefore he saith, “in Himself being one,” etc. Also, “He Himself being one speaking and doing in Himself.” This is the first, and that against Nestorius.

The other is: that yet there were and are in Christ working two beginnings of actions, distinct in themselves, by which those actions (as the school men say) were formally performed by the agent–namely the faculties or powers of the two natures. And this is against Eutyches.

And therefore he joineth, “by both (that is, by both natures) speaking and doing, that which is proper, to both natures.”

Now who seeth not, that the things which Christ did according to one nature, the same He did not according to the other? For He did by both, such things as were proper to each. He did not therefore according to His humanity, such things as belonged to His Deity, nor contrariwise.

Moreover to confirm and set forth the same He bringeth in an example of one and the same man, who according to the divers faculties of the soul, doth work divers actions, and bringeth forth deeds agreeable to each faculty.

The example appeareth of itself, there: “And to make it more plain,” etc.

But we must warily mark his particles, not only the affirmatives but also the negatives. For he denies that a man sees those things with the eyes of his flesh, which he seeth with the eyes of his mind, and contrariwise. Therefore he also denies that Christ doeth those things according to His flesh which He worketh according to His Deity. This he plainly declareth, when as applying the example, besides other things He saith of Christ, “But having one property by the nature of the Word, which remaining God, he lost not; and another by the nature of the flesh, which being made man, He received,” etc.

It is also to be marked, that Vigilius as well denieth that Christ doeth by the flesh, that is, according to the flesh, those things which are proper to the Deity; as he denieth that He suffered and did those things according to His Deity, which were proper to the flesh.

Vigilius also adjoineth a special declaration of the propriety and communion of the natures, and the same very perspicuous and certain, where he saith, “We will yet speak more to confirm this nature for their sakes,” etc. The sum is this:

4. The proprieties of both the natures are proper to the very person of Christ; but are common to the natures betwixt themselves, not in the very natures but in the person. The declaration is this.

For to die (which is the propriety of the flesh) is proper to Christ. For in that He is said to have died, it is properly spoken, in respect of the human nature which is in Him. Also, not to die is proper to Him in respect of His divine nature, which cannot die.

Likewise to die, is common to the Word or Deity of Christ; not in the divine nature itself, which cannot be partaker of death, but this was common to Him with His flesh in the person, because the person which carried the flesh could die in the flesh, and Jesus Christ did die. The same is to be thought and said of the other part; as Vigilius also declareth, adding the example of himself, that is, of a man, where he saith, “And for example’s sake, to say,” etc. In this example there is nothing but that which is plain.

But the conclusion is diligently to be marked, where he saith, “That therefore which is proper to me in either of them, and yet different from either of them; the same is common in me to either of them, which is proper to either of them. And yet I am the very same one 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.”

Nothing can be said more clear for the declaration of the question concerning the real communication of the proprieties. For first he teacheth that the proprieties of the one nature are so proper unto itself, that they are quite different from the other nature; and so different, that in their proper essence they can by no means be made common–that is, they cannot be so really communicated, that the same should be made that very same, or the like unto the other nature; as, for example, that the humanity should be made the Deity, or be made omnipotent, or, on the contrary, that the Deity could be made the humanity, or be made partaker of passion of suffering.

2. He delivereth in plain terms, that the proprieties of each nature are proper unto Christ, because indeed, it is proper unto Him in Himself (for example) in one nature to suffer, and in His other not to be able to suffer; so as this He hath common with no other thing, either in heaven or on earth, or in Himself. For there is nothing besides Himself that is both God and man; and neither of the natures in Him hath also the proprieties of the other nature besides their own, in their proper essence. Therefore it belongeth only to Christ God and man, to have in Himself really and therefore proper to Himself, the essential proprieties of each nature, both divine and human.

Wherefore hereby is it manifest also, which before was said of the communication. For if this be proper to the person of Christ, that these contraries–namely, to suffer, and not to be able to suffer,–may truly and indeed by said of Him, and yet not simply, but in respect of some other thing, that is in respect of His other nature, then can it not agree to any of both His natures severally, that the same nature should truly and really be said, to be able to suffer and not to suffer, in its own proper essence.

3. The proprieties of their natures which he said were proper to Christ; these he taught to be made common in themselves, not indeed in the very natures themselves, but in His person. For example, to suffer, which is proper to the human nature simply and by itself in its own essence, but proper to the person in respect of some other thing that is, only in respect of the flesh; I say this essential propriety of the flesh, by reason of the union which the flesh hath with the Deity itself in the same person, is made also common to the very divine nature itself with the human. How common? Namely that to suffer is truly attributed also to the divine nature.

But how can that be, since passion cannot fall into it? It is therefore common to it to suffer, not in the own essence (for that neither could nor can suffer) but in Christ, that is, in the person of Christ, which consisteth of the two natures. And therefore, which only according to the flesh suffered, so that in the proper essence of the Deity there is no passion, but it is only in the common person by reason of the flesh. And consequently God is also said to have suffered, when notwithstanding the Deity suffered nothing, but only the person of God and man, that is He which is God and man, suffered according to the flesh. I will rehearse this again. The proprieties (for example) of the human nature, as to suffer and to die, they are therefore said to be common to the Deity, because the Deity also hath them. For if in no sort it had them, the same could be said no ways to be made common to it with the flesh.

Now then, they are truly said to be common to the Deity with the humanity, not simply, but in Christ, because it hath them not in itself, that is, in the own essence as the flesh hath, but only in the person of Christ, which is one and the same person of both the natures, seeing it subsisteth in both of them.

The soul also hath the proprieties of the body, common unto itself, not in its own essence, as the body, but in the person of man, who as he consisteth of them both, as being his essential parts, so also he hath in himself really the proprieties of them both; so as he may truly be said to be visible, and invisible; mortal and immortal.

This which is said of the proprieties of the human nature, common with the divine, 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 said of the divine proprieties with the human, we are taught by Vigilius, bishop and martyr.

These things being in very deed thus, it hereupon is to be gathered, what manner of speeches may be thought agreeable to these matters. If a propriety of the flesh, as to suffer, be in some sort common to the Deity, then it may in some sort be said of the Deity. If it be not in such wise common to the same, as to have it in itself, as in its own essence, nor as an essential part of itself, nor as an accident in the subject, then the Deity cannot be said, in its own essence, to be subject to passion.

But if it be common unto it only in person, then to suffer cannot be said of the Deity in the abstract, but only in the concrete. This is, by such a word, wherein the Deity may be so signified, as the person may be signified with it; such as be the concrete names as God.

For by this name, so far forth as therein is signified, the person of Christ, which is also God and not bare man, it is truly and really said that God did suffer, and died. Yet not simply, and according to His Deity also, but only according to the flesh, whose property it is to suffer and to die. Wherefore as this is most true, God suffered; so this is most false, the Deity suffered; or that Christ also according to His divine nature suffered. This is the doctrine of Vigilius, and the whole church.

But seeing, that which Vigilius hath delivered, of the proprieties and communion of the natures, is indifferently said of all the proprieties and their communion in Christ. So that by this hypostatical or personal union, the divine proprieties are said to be made common to the humanity in the same sense that the human are to the divinity. Namely, not in the essences of the natures themselves, but only in Christ and in the person of Christ; it followeth, like as the proposition is impious, “the deity, by reason of the union with the flesh in the person of the Son of God, is made partaker of passion in its own essence.” So also this is blasphemous: “the human nature, by reason of the union with the divine, receiveth of it, that it is omnipotent really, in its own essence,” etc.

Now if we add that which the same Vigilius left in writing out of the common consent of the whole church, book 4, chapt. 4, this doctrine, which we showed even now out of him, will more plainly appear. For disputing against the Monophysites (defenders of one nature) he plainly proveth, by the divers proprieties, which were seen in one and the same Christ, and which the Holy Scriptures do speak of, that the Word and the flesh cannot be in Him all one nature; he bringeth a reason, because one nature cannot receive in itself anything that is contrary and divers [diverse]. Besides other things he also writeth thus: Moreover if there be but one nature of the Word and of the flesh, how can it be but that the Word being in all places, the flesh must be found in all places too? For doubtless when it was on earth, then was it not in heaven, and now being in heaven, it is not likewise on earth; yea it is so far from being on earth, as that according to it, we look for Christ to come down from heaven, whom according to the Word we believe to be with us 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 receive in itself any contrary or divers things. But it is very contrary and far different to be circumscribed or contained in one place, and to be everywhere; and seeing the Word is everywhere, and the flesh is not everywhere, it appeareth that one and the same Christ is of both natures; and that He is everywhere, according to the nature of His divinity, and is contained in a place, according to the nature of His humanity; that He hath been created and hath no beginning; that He hath died, and hath not been able to die; 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 Son of God, and the same made the Son of man, hath a beginning by the nature of His flesh, and hath no beginning by the nature of His divinity. He was created by the nature of His flesh, and was not created by the nature of His divinity. He is circumscribed by the nature of His flesh, and is not contained within place by the nature of His divinity. He is less also than the angels, by the nature of His flesh, and is equal to the Father, according to the nature of His divinity. He died by nature of His flesh, and died not by nature of His divinity. This is the catholic faith and confession which the apostles delivered, the martyrs confirmed, and the faithful do yet assuredly hold. Thus saith Vigilius.

By this the very same is undoubtedly proved, which was also by the other before, namely, not only that the Word and flesh, cannot possibly be both of one nature, as the Monophysites affirmed; but also that the proprieties of the one nature cannot really be communicated to the other. So as indeed, it should have the same in itself, and that the one nature should be made the very like, that the other is; as thus, that the flesh, by reason of the union with the Word, should also with the same Word, be made present in all places, in its own essence. For from this proposition which is held for granted, of all sound believers, namely, “The flesh through the union with the Word, hath not gotten this propriety of the Word, that itself, should with the Word be present in all places, in its own substance.” From this proposition (I say) he concludeth therefore neither is it made of the same nature with the Word. This certainly is the argument of Vigilius, yea of the whole catholic church. What remaineth? Only this, that if it may be said to be present in all places, it can be said to be so, by no other means, than by the hypostasie [hypostasis] of it, which is the very Word.

For in Christ’s human nature, there be only two things: the proper essence of His nature, with His proprieties and gifts created; and the common hypostasis with the divine, which is the Word itself. His proper essence is finite or determinate, and so is only within one place. The hypostasis is infinite, immeasurable, and most simple or unmixed. And therefore in this only, and not in the proper essence, the flesh of Christ can be, and in very deed is, present in all places.

That which hath been said of this propriety, the same is also to be thought of all the rest, as well those of the Word, as of the flesh. For also in the argument before going [foregoing ?] against the Monophysites, book 4, chap. 4, he concludeth the same, from certain proprieties of the Word, as is to be uncreated, invisible, untouchable; and said, that it is impossible, the flesh cannot be of one nature with the Word, since it can by no means be made invisible, uncreated, untouchable; understand this in its own essence; whereas notwithstanding in the hypostasis of it, which is common to it with the Word, it is in very deed, as in all places present, so also, uncreated, invisible, untouchable, and what not? Seeing in the same hypostasis it is also God. These things are all most assured and plain, and do depend upon that infallible rule, which he delivered in the fifth book and second chapter, namely, “We say better and more catholically, it is common in him, and not unto him.” And we say better, “It is proper to him, and not in him.”

I beseech all Christians, by our Lord Jesus, that setting aside all the vain dreams of private men, and rejecting all the affections, hatreds, enmities of their flesh, and embracing the assured and wholesome doctrine of the ancient church and Christ love, we may all join together into one holy league of friendship, even as we have all one God, one Mediator, one baptism, one hope of our vocation, to the glory of God’s Name, the building up of the church, and the salvation of our souls. For sooner than we suppose shall we be summoned before Christ’s tribunal seat, that everyone may give account for that which he hath done in the body, and in this life; seeing that after this life, there is no hope of pardon, no place for amendment.