into thy hands I commend my spirit; and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." (Luke xxiii. 46.) And as his death was nothing else but the separation of the soul from his body; so the life of Christ as man did consist in the conjunction and vital union of that soul with the body. So that he which was perfect God, was also perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Which is to be observed and asserted against the ancient heretics,* who taught that Christ assumed human flesh, but that the Word or his Divinity was unto that body in the place of an informing soul. sumpsisse Deum credunt, Ariani vero carnis tantummodo.' Facundus, 1. ix. c. 3. p. 382. So that two things are to be observed in the Apollinarians, their philosophy and their divinity: their philosophy, in making man consist of three distinct parts, the body, the soul, and the mind; their divinity, in making the human nature of Christ to consist but of two, the body and the soul, and the third to be supplied by the Word. Which is excellently expressed by Nemesius de Nat. Hom. in respect of his philosophy: Tèc μὲν, ὧν ἐστὶ καὶ Πλωτῖνος, ἄλλην εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ἄλλον τὸν νοῦν δογμα τίσαντες, ἐκ τριῶν τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνε στάναι βούλονται, σώματος, καὶ ψυχῆς, καὶ νοῦ. Οἷς ἠκολούθησε καὶ ̓Απολλινάριος ὁ τῆς Λαοδικείας γενόμενος ἐπίσκοπος τοῦτον γὰρ πηξάμενος τὸν θεμέλιον τῆς οἰκείας δόξης, καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ προσῳκοδόμησε κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα. C. 1. init. And by Theodoret in respect of his Divinity: Zapкwoñvaι dè TòV Θεὸν ἔφησε λόγον, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνειληφότα οὐ τὴν λογικὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄλογον, ἣν φυσικὴν, ἤγουν ζωτικὴν, τι νὲς ὀνομάζουσι. τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι λέγων, οὐκ ἔφησεν ἀνειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ ̓ ἀρκέσαι τὴν θείαν φύσιν εἰς τὸ πληρῶσαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν χρείαν. Hæret. Fab. I. iv. §. 8. Thus the whole perfect and complete nature of man was assumed by the Word,† by him who was conceived and born of a woman, and so made a man. And being the divine nature which he had before could never cease to be what before it was, nor ever become what before it was not; therefore he * Of this kind two several sects were most remarkable, the Arians and the Apollinarians. Arius taught that Christ had nothing of man but the flesh, and with that the Word was joined. "Apeios dè σápka μóvŋv pòç ἀποκρυφὴν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου τουτέστι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει Yeyovéval. Athan. de Adv. Christi, c. Apollinar. 1. ii. §. 3. So Felicianus the Arian, in Vigil. de Unitate Trin. c. 17. Ita enim a majoribus nostris semper est traditum, quod Christi corpus ad vicem animæ communis ipsius Filii Dei habitus animarit; nec accessione animalis spiritus indigens fuerit, cui inhabitans fons vitæ potuit conferre quod vixit. Eunomius followed him in this particular: ̓́Αρειος δὲ καὶ Εὐνόμιος σῶμα μὲν αὐτὸν ἔφασαν εἰληφέναι, θεότητα δὲ ψυχῆς ἐνηργηκέναι τὴν χρείαν. Theod. 1. v. cont. Har. c. 11. Apollinaris distinguished between the soul and the mind, the ψυχὴ and the νοῦς, and acknowledged that the Word assumed the body and the soul, or ψυχὴ of man, but not the mind or spirit, or the νοῦς, but the Word itself was in the place of that. Apollinaristas Apollinaris instituit, qui de anima Christi ab Ecclesia Catholica dissenserunt, dicentes, sicut Ariani, Deum Christum carnem sine anima suscepisse. In quæstione testimoniis Evangelicis victi, mentem, qua rationalis est anima hominis, non faisse in anima Christi, sed pro hac ipsum verbum in ea fuisse, dixerunt.' This was then the clear difference between the Arian and Apollinarian heresy: 'Apollinarista quidem carnis et animæ naturam sine mente as Hoc +Quid a Patre Christus acceperat, nisi quod et induerat? hominem sine dubio, carnis animæque texturam.' Tertull. de Resur, carn. c. 34. toto credente jam mundo, puto quod et Dæmones confiteantur Filium Dei natum de Maria Virgine, et carnem naturæ humanæ atque animam suscepisse.' S. Hier. init. Apol. 2. advers, Ruffinum, col, 745. who was God before by the divine nature which he had, was in this incarnation made man by that human nature which he then assumed; and so really and truly was both God and man.* And thus the third Article from the conjunction with the second, teacheth us no less than the two natures really distinct in Christ incarnate. For if both natures were not preserved complete and distinct in Christ, it must be either by the conversion and transubstantiation of one into the other, or by commixtion and confusion of both into one. But neither of these ways can consist with the person of our Saviour, or the office of our Mediator. For if we should conceive such a mixtion and confusion of substances as to make a union of natures, we should be so far from acknowledging him to be both God and man, that thereby we should profess him to be neither God nor man, but a person of a nature as different from both, as all mixed bodies are distinct from each element which concurs unto their composition. Besides, we know there were in Christ the affections proper to the nature of man, and all those infirmities which belong to us, and cannot be conceived to belong to that nature of which the divine was but a part. Nor could our humanity be so commixed or confounded with the Divinity of our Saviour, but that the Father had been made man as much as the Son, because the divine nature is the same both of the Father and the Son. Nor ought we to have so low an esteem of that infinite and independent being,† as to think it so commixed with or immersed in the creature. Again, as the confusion, so the conversion of natures is impossible. For first, we cannot with the least show of probability conceive the divine nature of Christ to be transubstantiated into the human nature; as those whom they call Flandrian Anabaptists in the Low-Countries at this day maintain. There is a plain repugnancy even in the supposition; for the nature of man must be made, the nature of God cannot be made, and consequently cannot become the nature of man. The immaterial, indivisible, and immortal Godhead cannot be divided into a spiritual and incorruptible soul, and a carnal and corruptible body; of which two humanity consisteth. There is no other Deity of the Father than of the Son; and therefore if this was converted into that humanity, then was the Father also that man, and grew in knowledge, suffered, and died. We must not therefore so far stand upon the propriety of speech, when it is written, (John i. 14.) "The Word was made flesh," as to destroy the propriety both of the Word and of the flesh.* Secondly, We must not, on the contrary, invent a conversion of the human nature into the divine, as the Eutychians of old did fancy. For sure the incarnation could not at first consist in such a conversion, it being unimaginable how that which had no being should be made by being turned into something else. Therefore the humanity of Christ could not at the first be made by being the Divinity of the Word. Nor is the incarnation so preposterously expressed, as if the flesh were made the Word, but that the Word was made flesh. And if the manhood were not in the first act of incarnation converted into the divine nature, as we see it could not be; then is there no pretence of any time or manner, in or by which it was afterward so transubstantiated.† Vain therefore was * In that proposition, ¿ Xóyoç σàp éyévero, there hath been strange force used by men of contrary judgments, and for contrary ends, as to the word tyEvETO. The Socinians endeavouring to prove it can have no other sense than simply fuit, the Word was flesh: the Flandrian Anabaptists stretching it to the highest sense of factum est, the Word was made flesh. It is confessed that the verb yívɛodaι in the use of the Greek language is capable of either interpretation: it is also acknowledged that the most ancient interpreters were divided in their renditions. For the Syriac rendered it NINEN Et verbum caro fuit; the ancient Latin, Et verbum caro factum est. It cannot be denied but in the Scriptures it hath been used indifferently in either sense. And the same old Vulgar translation in some places renders it, as the Syriac doth here, Matt. x. 16. yívɛo0ɛ ovv ppóviμo wc oi õpe, Estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes; and 25. 'AρKεTÒV тŸ μаθητῇ ἵνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκαλος αὐτοῦ, Sufficiat discipulo ut sit sicut magister ejus. From whence it is evident that they placed not the force in the signification of the word yiveolar, but in the circumstance of the matter in which it was used. Howsoever, neither of these interpretations prove either of these opinions. For if it be acknowledged that the Word was flesh, and it hath been already proved and presupposed by St. John in his precedent discourse, that the Word had a former being antecedent to his being flesh; it followeth, that he which was before the Word, and was not flesh, if after he were flesh, must be made such. And so the Socinian observation falls. Again, if he which was made flesh was the Word, and after he was made such was still the Word, as certainly he was, and is still the same; then his being made or becoming flesh can no way evacuate that nature, in which he did before subsist. And so the Flandrian interpretation is of no validity. This was the proper opinion of Eutyches, as appeareth by his own confession in the Council of Chalcedon: 'Opoλoyw ik dúo púœewv yeyevñσθαι τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν μίαν φύσιν ὁμολογῶ. Act. 1. Two distinct naturcs he confessed at first, but when the union was once made, he acknowledged but one. But when that union was made be expressed not, nor could his followers agree; some attributing it to the conception, some to the resurrection, others to the ascension. Howsoever, when they were united, his opinion clearly was, that the buman nature was so absorbed into the divine, so wholly made the same, that it ceased wholly to be what it was, and so there was but one, that is, the divine nature remained. This is sufficiently expressed by St. Leo, who was the strongest opposer of him, and speaketh thus of his opinion, Serm. 8. de Nativ. Hic autem recentioris sacrilegii profanus assertor unitionem quidem in Christo duarum confessus est that old conceit of Eutyches, who thought the union to be made so in the natures, that the humanity was absorbed and wholly turned into the Divinity, so that by that transubstantiation the human nature had no longer being. And well did the ancient fathers, who opposed this heresy, make use of the sacramental union between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ, and thereby shewed, that the human nature of Christ is no more really converted into the Divinity, and so ceaseth to be the human nature, than the substance of the bread and wine is really converted into the substance of the body and blood, and thereby ceaseth to be both bread and wine. From whence it is by the way observable, that the Church in those days understood no such doctrine as that of transubstantiation.* naturarum; sed ipsa unione id dixit evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis de effectum, ut ex duabus una remaneret, ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, nullatenus alterius exsistente substantia.' And the Eranistes in the dialogue of Theodoret arguing for that opinion, being urged to declare whether in that union one nature was made of them both, or one remaining, the other did not so, answered plainly: Ἐγὼ τὴν θεότητα λέγω μεμενηκέναι, και ταποθῆναι δὲ ὑπὸ ταύτης τὴν ἀνθρωπόTηra. Dialog. ii. p. 77. * There can be no time in which we may observe the doctrine of the ancients so clearly, as when they write professedly against a heresy evidently known, and make use generally of the same arguments against it. Now what the heresy of Eutyches was, is certainly known, and the nature of the sacrament was generally made use of as an argument to confute it. Gelasius bishop of Rome hath written an excellent book against Eutyches, de duabus naturis in Christo, in Biblioth. Patr. Lat. t. v. par. 3. p. 671. in which he propoundeth their opinion thus: Eutychiani dicunt unam esse naturam, id est, Divinam;' and, 'sola exsistente Deitate, Humanitas illic esse jam destitit.' That then which he disputes against is the transubstantiation of the human nature into the divine. The argument which he makes use of against it is drawn from the eucharist: 'Certe Sacramenta quæ sumimus corporis et sanguinis Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divinæ efficimur consortes naturæ: et tamen esse non desinit substantia vel natura Panis et Vini. Et certe imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebrantur. Satis ergo nobis quod in ejus imagine profitemur, celebramus, et sumimus, ut sicut in hanc, scilicet, in Divinam, transeant, S. Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanentes tamen in suæ proprietate naturæ ; sic illud ipsum mysterium principale, cujus nobis efficientiam virtutemque veraciter repræsentant, ex quibus constat proprie permanentibus, unum Christum, quia integrum verumque, permanere demonstrant.' In which words it is plain he affirms the union of the human nature of Christ to be the principal mystery, the representation of that mystery to be in the sacrament of the eucharist: he concludes from thence, that as in the representation the substance of the bread and wine remaineth in the propriety of their own nature, so the human nature of Christ in the greater mystery doth still remain. In the margin of this place in the Bibliotheca Patrum there is printed Caute, as if there could be any danger in observing the sense of the fathers, when they speak so expressly and considerately. In the same manner we find a disputation between a heretic and a catholic in the second dialogue of Theodoret, where Eranistes, as a heretic, asks Orthodoxus by what names he calls the bread and wine after consecration; who answers, The body and blood of Christ: from whence Eranistes argues, p. 85. "Qoñeρ roívvv rà σύμβολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματός τε καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα μὲν εἰσὶ πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετὰ δέ γε τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μετ ταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται· οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν As Being then he which is conceived was the only Son of God, and that only Son begotten of the substance of the Father, and so always subsisted in the divine nature; being by the same conception he was made truly man, and consequently assumed a human nature; being these two natures cannot be made one either by commixtion or conversion, and yet there can be but one Christ subsisting in them both, because that only Son was he which is conceived and born: it followeth, that the union which was not made in the nature, was made in the person of the Word; that is, it was not so made, that out of both natures one only should result, but only so, that to one person no other should be added. Nor is this union only a scholastic speculation, but a certain and necessary truth, without which we cannot have one Christ, but two Christs, one Mediator, but two Mediators; without which we cannot join the second Article of our CREED with the third, making them equally belong to the same person; without which we cannot interpret the sacred Scriptures, or understand the history of our Saviour. For certainly he which was before Abraham, was in the days of Herod born of a woman; he which preached in the days of Noah, began to preach in the days of Tiberius, being at that time about thirty years of age; he was demonstrated the Son of God with power, who was the seed of David according to the flesh; he who died on the cross, raised him from the dead the body, but also bread of life, and the body itself we call the divine body. Who sees not then, that Theodoret believed no more that the bread is converted into the body, than that the body is converted into the Divinity of Christ? Who perceives not that he thought the bread to be as substantially and really bread after the consecration, as the body of Christ is really a body after his ascension ? The same argument is used by St. Chrysostom upon the same occasion against the Apollinarians in his epistle ad Cæsarium, not yet published in Greek, and by Ephraimus in Photii Bibliotheca against the Eutychians. As therefore all the μεταστοιχείωσις of the sacramental elements maketh them not cease to be of the same nature which before they were; so the human nature of Christ, joined to the divine, loseth not the nature of humanity, but continueth with the Divinity as a substance in itself distinct; and so Christ doth subsist not only er, but in duabus naturis, as the Council of Chalcedon determined against the symbols of the body and blood of |