Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

his years must have a subject proper for it, which was no other than a human soul. This was the seat of his finite understanding and directed will, distinct from the will of his Father, and consequently of his divine nature; as appeareth by that known submission, "not my will, but thine be done." (Luke xxii. 42.) This was the subject of those affections and passions which so manifestly appeared in him: nor spake he any other than a proper language, when before his suffering he said, " My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matt. xxvi. 38.) This was it which on the cross, before the departure from the body, he recommended to the Father: teaching us in whose hands the souls of the departed are: for "when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, 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.

*

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. "Αρειος δὲ σάρκα μόνην πρὸς ἀποκρυφὴν τῆς θεότητος ὁμολογεῖ· ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἔσωθεν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀνθρώπου τουτέστι τῆς ψυχῆς, τὸν λόγον ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ λέγει γεγοvival. 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, Θεός τητα δὲ ψυχῆς ἐνηργηκέναι τὴν χρείαν. Theod. I. v. cont. Hær. c. 11. Apollinaris distinguished between the soul and the mind, the x and the vous, and acknowledged that the Word assumed the body and the soul, or lux of man, but not the mind or spirit, or the vous, 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 fuisse in anima Christi, sed pro hac ipsum verbum

in ea fuisse, dixerunt.' This was then the clear difference between the Arian and Apollinarian heresy: 'Apollinaristæ quidem carnis et animæ naturam sine mente assumpsisse 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 : Τινὲς μὲν, ὧν ἐστὶ καὶ Πλωτίνος, ἄλλην εἶναι τὴν ψυχὴν, καὶ ἄλλον τὸν νοῦν δογματίσαντες, ἐκ τριῶν τὸν ἄνθρωπον συνεστάναι 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 προσωκοδόμησε κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον δόγμα. c. l. init. And by Theodoret in respect of his Divinity: Σαρκωθῆναι δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἔφησε λόγον, σῶμα καὶ ψυχὴν ἀνειληφότα οὐ τὴν λογικὴν, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἄλογον, ἣν φυσικὴν, ἤγουν ζωτικὴν, τινὲς ὀνομά ζουσι. τὸν δὲ νοῦν ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν ψυχὴν εἶ ναι λέγων, οὐκ ἔφησεν ἀνειλῆφθαι, ἀλλ ̓ ἀρκέσαι τὴν θείαν φύσιν εἰς τὸ πληρῶσαι τοῦ νοῦ τὴν xgslav. Hæret. Fab. 1. 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 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

'Quid a Patre Christus acceperat, nisi quod et induerat? hominem sine dubio, carnis animæque texturam.' Tertull. de Resur. carn. c. 34. Hoc 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.

† Νῦν δὴ ἐπεφάνη ἀνθρώποις αὐτὸς οὗτος ὁ λόγος, ὁ μόνος ἀμφω, Θεός τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος. Clem. Alexand. adv. Gentes, c. i. p. 3.

dam genere duas naturas in unam arbitremur redactas esse substantiam : hu

jusmodi enim commixtio partis utriusque corruptio est. Deus enim qui capax est, non capabilis, penetrans, non penetrabilis, implens, non implebilis, qui ubique simul totus, et ubique diffusus est per infusionem potentiæ suæ, misericorditer naturæ mixtus est humanæ, non humana natura naturæ est mixta Divinæ.' Leporius Libel. Emend. p. 9.

§ Teste Episcopio, Instit. Theol. 1. iv.

Absit ita credere, ut conflatili quo- c. 8.

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, 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 afterwards so transubstantiated.† Vain therefore was that old conceit of Euty

In that proposition, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγέ VETO, there hath been strange force used by men of contrary judgments, and for contrary ends, as to the word iyiveTo. 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 yiverbal 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

-Et ver ומלתא בסרא הוא Syriac rendered it

bum 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. γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις, Estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes; and 25. ̓Αρκετὸν τῷ μαθητῇ ἕνα γένηται ὡς ὁ διδάσκα λος αὐτοῦ, Suficiat discipulo ut sit sicut magister ejus. From whence it is evident that they placed not the force in the signification of the word yivera, 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 : 'Oμsλογῶ ἐκ δύο φύσεων γεγενῆσθαι τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν πρὸ τῆς ἑνώσεως, μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἕνωσιν μίαν φύσ σιν ὁμολογῶ. Act. 1. Two distinct natures he confessed at first, but when the union was once made, he acknowledged but But when that union was made he 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 human nature was so absorbed into the divine, so wholly made the same, that

one.

ches, 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.*

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 naturarum; sed ipsa unione id dixit effectum, ut ex duabus una remaneret, 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, καταποθῆναι δὲ ὑπὸ ταύτης τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα. 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 evidenter ostenditur, hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum, 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. Ωσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμβολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματός τε καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα μὲν εἰσὶ πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετὰ δέ 78 · τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται καὶ ἕτερα γίνεται· οὕτω τὸ δε σποτικὸν σῶμα μετὰ τὴν ἀνάληψιν εἰς τὴν οὐ σίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν As the symbols of the body and blood of Christ are one thing before consecration, and after that change their name, and become another; so the body of Christ after his ascension is changed into

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 who died so, being "put to death through the flesh, and quickened by the Spirit;" (1 Pet. iii. 18.) he was " of the fathers as concerning the flesh,' who was "God over all blessed for ever." (Rom. ix. 5.) Being these and the like actions and affections cannot come from the same nature, and yet must be attributed to the same person;

the divine substance. To this Orthodoxus answers : Εάλως αἷς ὕφηνες ἄρκυσιν, Χου are taken in your own nets. Οὐδὲ γὰς μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως, μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος, καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατα ἐστι καὶ ἑπτὰ, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν· The bread and wine even after consecration leave not their own nature, but remain in their former substance, shape, and form. In the same manner: Καὶ ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα τὸ μὲν πρότερον εἶδος ἔχει καὶ σχῆμα καὶ περιγραφὴν, καὶ ἅπαξ ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, τὴν τοῦ σώ ματος οὐσίαν· The body of Christ hath the same form, figure, and shape, and indeed the same bodily substance. And when Eranistes still objects, that the bread is called the body, and not bread; Orthodoxus answers that he is mistaken: Où yàg oua μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄρτος ζωῆς ὀνομάζεται, οὕτως αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος προσηγόρευσε, καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ σῶμα θεῖον ονομάζομεν σῶμα· For it is not only called 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 Photü 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 ex, but in duabus naturis, as the Council of Chalcedon determined against Eutyches.

[graphic]
« ZurückWeiter »