suppositums which if they be endued with understanding by the confession of all are persons Likewise also offices are proper to persons as also the Adversaries confess it But now that the humane nature of Christ properly acts is proved by that that it doth also really subsist and hath in it self a strength or power also and faculties sufficient to act For it hath not less than any man yea by so much greater by how much greater gifts and greater power is given it of God But what is required to it that any thing may in proper speaking act but that it may really subsist and have in it self a strength or power sufficient to act Surely it should be denyed that we do properly act if that might be denyed of the humane nature of Christ which as we have said in those things that are required to the action properly so called doth not only equal us but also in many respects exceed And that we may declare that thing more peculiarly doth not it speaking properly by it self understand and reason Then it is not an intelligent substance and endued with a rational soul and further neither an humane For that is an intelligent substance that can especially with some access of use and exercise really I say properly not improperly understand and reason But even the understanding alone would suffice to prove its person for it is proper to persons as also we have before minded Further Take now other actions whether proper to men or animals as to will desire eat drink move it self in a place and stirs its members to act If the humane nature had not faculties to exercise these actions either it was not an humane nature at all or it was maimed either in respect of the body or soul The Truth or the Adversaries opinion admits neither The Antiquity condemned the Monothelites who held one only will in Christ But if there were in him a double will one in the divine nature another in the humane as the divine nature hath willed and doth will by its proper will so also the humanity by its for wherefore else should it be in it Faculties are for actions And surely his humane will shewed forth it self abundantly * Mat. 26.39 Mar. 14.35 36. Luke 22.42 whilst he sought of his Father to remove the cup frow him Although here it might be enough for us that this nature might properly will for that agâ—ees not but to Suppositums Perhaps they will say that the humane nature did not subsist by it self but in the person of the Son of God and therefore also by it self could act nothing For that which subs sts not by it self doth nothing also by it self Wherefore all the actions properly and directly are not to be ascribed to the humane nature by which they are performed but to whole Christ although according to the humane nature For in whole Christ or his person they are termâ—nated and founded But if you would directly ascribe those actions to the humane nature it self the expression or speaking would be improper as when I say the soul understands wills feels when yet the soul doth not properly understand will feel but the man with or by or according to the soul So neitâ—er doth the body eat drink but the man himself by the body So lastly neiâ—her doth the arm move it self although we sometimes so speak but the man Which things let us consider of what moment they are and first that why they deny the humane nature of Christ to subsist by it self Now theâ—e may be a threefold meaning of that expression which may here come into ones mind For first that may be said to subsist by it self which â—eeds not any subjectum in which it may in here and from which if it be removed it will loose its being In this manner all substances subsist by themselves accidents do not subs st those namely which are wont commonly to be distributed into nine Categories or Predicaments In this manner the humane nature by the Adversaries confession subsists by it self for it is a substance not an accident otherwise it would not be an humane nature Besides that subsists by it self which needs not at all any outward prop that it may subsist and be preserved entire and safe In this manner no created thing and depending on another subsists by it self But that hinders not but that the things destitute of this way of subsisting by themselves act properly as is manifest to any one For things corruptible and chiefly men want both many causes that at first they may exist and many helps that they may be conserved and yet they do properly act Wherefore that will neither hinder the humane nature that it should not speaking properly act Thirdly That subsists by it self which is not a part of another but constitutes some whole by it self and absolute in all its respects In this manner the parts of any thing whether integrant or essential are not said to subsist by themselves and therefore not to act by themselves but the whole by them And hitherto belong all those examples brought a little before Perhaps in this manner the Adversaries will say that the humane nature of Christ doth not subsist by it self because it is a part of another suppositum to wit of whole Christ or his person But if the thing be so neither that second person of the Divinity with which the humane is said to be united and which therefore is the other part of the same suppositum shall properly any more act any thing So a divine person that is of the supream God himself who speaking properly hath acted is become that which speaking properly cannot act than which nothing can be thought more absurd For certainly if the humane nature be a part there will be also some other part of the same whole But what is it besides the person by which it is assumed and with which it is said to be united Wherefore this also will be a part and consequently will no more subsist by it self to wit in that manner of subsisting which we now handle than the humane nature But besides if the humane nature of Christ be full and perfect consisting of a humane body and a rational soul both of them absolute in all respects is it not by it self an entire thing having faculties sufficient to act Certainly if you deny any of these either you will deny the entireness of the humane nature or you will deny also that we our selves are such entire things The Adversaries being constrained by the very truth of the thing grant the humane Nature of Christ to be by it self an essential whole neither dare they say it is an integrant part of Christ because they hold those only to be integrant parts which have quantity Wherefore if Christ should consist of a humane nature and a divine as integrant parts also the divine nature being the other part of this suppositum would have quantity
Lord. And how often I pray you in the Apostle is mention made of God the Father and of the Lord Jesus Christ Why then should we think that in this place the holy Spirit being once already named is understood when afterward there is distinct mention made of Lord and God Wherefore rather following the custom and analogy of the Scripture we put a difference between God Lord and Spirit as the same Apostle himself doth in the end of the latter Epistle to the Corinthians where he speaketh thus The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Love of God and the Communion of the holy Spirit be with you all CHAP. VI. The sixt Argument taken from these words 1 Tim. 2.5 There is One God and One Mediator of God and Men the Man Christ Jesus To which are added those Rom. 3.10 There is one God who justifieth the Circumcision by Faith c. Arg. 6 from 1 Tim. 2.5 OUr Argument from that place of Timothy is thus If the Father only is there understood by the name of that one God the Father only is that most high God For if any one besides the Father were the most high God he would be comprehended under the name of that one God since he is that One God besides whom there is no other Now that the Father only is there understood by the name of that One God is apparent in that he only is understood by that name between whom and Men the Apostle saith that Christ Jesus is the Mediator as is manifest from the connection of the words But he is none but the Father of Jesus Christ A further Confirmation and Defence of the Argument THat we may fully confirm this Argument that is to be proved whereof we last spake namely That the Father only is that God between whom and Men the Apostle saith That Christ is the Mediator For that Christ is the Mediator between the Father and Men no man doubteth but that he is the Mediator only between the Father and Men many men deny for they hold that Christ is the Mediator of the whole Trinity But this Opinion cannot consist for it would thence follow that Christ who is held the second Person of the Trinity would be the Mediator of himself or interveneth in the middle between himself which is contradictious Besides Christ in this place is most openly distinguished from God whose Mediator he is said to be You will say That Christ is a Mediator only according to the humane nature and that there is no absurdity to hold that Christ considered according to the humane Nature is the Mediator of himself considered according to the divine Nature and is righly distinguished from that one God But this answer is not only not brought but also wholly rejected by many of the very Adversaries for others altogether contend that Christ according to both natures is Mediator but some although they are afraid to speak so yet do they indeed say the same for they refer that office to the whole Person of Christ considered in its full latitude or to Christ as he is both God and Man As for the rest who would have Christ according to the humane Nature only to be Mediator neither do they by this distinction escape the difficulty for there are or have been some who would have the very humane nature of Christ to be indeed the Mediator and contend that it only is in Paul understood by the name of the Man Christ Jesus O These as the other Adversaries have observed are necessitated to confess that the humane Nature of Christ is a Person for both Offices such as Mediatorship is agree to none but Persons and the name of Man and also of Christ Jesus is the name of a Person But if the humane Nature of Christ is a Person he cannot be a Person of supream Deity for there would be in him two Persons a humane and a divine I say a divine one essentially But that there are two Persons in Christ all justly reject as Nestorian and contrary to the Scripture and judged to be most absurd But there are others and those far more numerous who to avoid this Rock deal more subtilly for they say that not the very humane Nature of Christ but his Suppositum or Person is properly the Mediator whereas the humane Nature is the formal Principle of that Mediation namely that part of the Subject which containeth in it self the proper cause of the action which because it is somewhat obscure is to be declared by an example Philosophers teach that a man properly doth understand love and hate and also eat drink run not the very soul or the body but that he doth understand love and hate according to the soul whereas he doth eat and drink according to the body So that the formal principle of some humane actions is the soul of others the body In like manner the Adversaries say that the Suppositum or Person of Christ that is very whole Christ is properly the Mediator and consequently doth such things as pertain to a Mediator but according to the humane Nature and they farther add this reason because should not the very Person of Christ be the Mediator the actions which he performs as Mediator would not have infinite efficacy and value nor satisfie God for the sins of men deserving infinite punishment which they think to be the proper Office of Christ the Mediator But now because his Person which is the very infinite God doth properly perform these actions though according to the humane nature hence it cometh to pass that they have an infinite force and worth But whilst they thus dispute they again shut the hole to get out at which they seemed to themselves by the distinction of natures to have opened For if the very divine Person of Christ is Mediator and performeth the actions proper to a Mediator it is necessary that the divine Nature also should perform the same and so Christ be a Mediator likewise according to the divine Nature for as the Adversaries themselves confess a divine Person doth not really differ from the divine Nature nor add any thing to the Nature but a Subsistence But a Subsistence hath of it self no poweâ— to act but all the power to act resideth in the Nature the subsistence is only a condition without which the Nature doth not act wherefore whatsoever the divine Person of Christ doth act his divine Nature endued with a subsistence doth act From whence it may be understood first that it is not rightly said that the very Suppositum as they speak or Person of Christ doth do any thing according to the humane Nature since the Person of Christ if we follow the force of the Adversaries Opinion is the very divine Nature having its subsistence But it is not rightly said that the divine Nature subsisting doth do something according to the humane Nature since the humane Nature is not a part of the divine Nature
to him according to his inferiour Nature Wherefore if Christ were the most high God it could not be simply or without any limitation and respect of a certain nature expresly added be denied of him that he can do any thing of himself Since therefore it is denied it is apparent that he is not the most high God Add hereunto that Christ in this place is described by the name of the Son of God and that in respect of God But most of the Adversaries refer this description only to the divine Nature of Christ all refer it to it chiefly Wherefore so much the less credit is it that that is here simply denied of him which agreeth to him according to the divine Nature and consequently both may and ought to be simply affirmed of the Son of God Certainly that would be all one as if you should say that a man or a substance endued with understanding cannot understand reason remember because he cannot do these things according to the body But against that which we have said some of the Adversaries are wont to alledge that a man according to his soul is immortal or incorruptible and yet it is simply denied that he is immortal or incorruptible But it is to be observed that we speak of those Attributes which both may and are wont to be affirmed of the whole Subject simply and without limitation although they do primarily and by themselves only agree to one part thereof so to the whole only by consequence But to be immortal or incorruptible as the very Adversaries together with us confess is not simply and without limitation affirmed of the whole man namely because we see the whol◠composition of man to be dissolved and to die and be corrupted although the Spirit remain after it But the same Adversaries contend that as all the attributes which agree to the Humanity of Christ are wont simply without limitation to be affirmed of Christ for example sake that he was conceived born of a Virgin suffered dyed was buried raised up from the dead the like so also all the attributes of the divine Nature Wherefore as they simply affirm that he is God so also they simply and without limitation affirm and if they will be true to themselves are forced to affirm that he existed from all Eternity Omnipotent Omniscient Immense Creator of Heaven and Earth Some alledge that of * Rom. 7.17 Paul where he affirmeth that the evils which he worketh he himself did not work but sin that dwelleth in him where they think that what is simply affirmed of the whole is simply denied of the same because it agreeth not to the other part And therefore that the contradiction which at first sight appeareth in these words is to be taken away by the distinction of parts But they are exceedingly mistaken for neither hath Paul respect to divers parts in the same subject as if the thing were attributed to the subject according to one part and according to the other part taken away from the same this I say is not there done but the same attribute is by an elegant Antanaclasis one while taken more largely another while more strictly namely by a certain excellency and being taken more largely is attributed to the Subject but taken more strictly it is denied of the same whole and not attributed to another part of the same Subject but to another Subject as the place it self sheweth For the man described by Paul under his own person is said to work these evils the word work being taken properly and largely but the same is denied to work them as the word work signifieth to be the prime and principal cause of working For this he saith is not he himself but sin In the same manner he elsewhere saith that he laboured more than the other * 1 Cor. 15.10 Apostles yet not he but the Grace of God that was with him He affirmeth that he himself laboured if it be properly spoken but denieth the same because he was not the prime and principal cause of the labour but the grace of God that was present with him Thus also Christ †John 7.6 saith My Doctrine is not mine but his that sent me ‖ chap. 12.44 He that believeth on me believeth not on me but on him that sent me For the Doctrine of Christ was his own because it was promulgated by him it was not his own because himself was not the prime Author thereof but he that sent him It is believed on him because he is the object of faith not on him because he is not the principal object and ultimate scope of faith for so he is that sent Christ Wherefore that we may return unto our place it is necessary that Christ when he simply denied that he could do nothing of himself did speak of himself wholly how great soever he is and not only of one part of himself or not of himself according to one part only Which that it may yet more evidently appear and the rule before set down by us be the more confirmed this is to be added If that which may is wor◠absolutely to be affirmed of the whole may also simply and absolutely without any limitation be denied of the same whole namely because it agreeth not thereunto according to some part though an inferiour one it will be lawful simply to affirm of Christ what we would have namely that he is not the most high God did not exist from Eternity did not create the World that the Son of God was not incarnate or made man was not in Heaven before he was born of the Virgin because none of these things agree to him according to the humane Nature yea it may be said that the Son of God is not the Son of God especially the only begotten one if he is held to be such as he was begotten out of the Essence of the Father which agrees not to him according to the humane Nature Finally it will be lawful to say that he was neither conceived of the holy Spirit nor born of Mary nor grew nor eat nor drank nor wept nor dyed nor rose again nor ascended into Heaven nor shall come to judgment and other things innumerable because none of these things agreeth to him according to the divine Nature Those first Expressions the Adversaries will not endure as for the rest the ears of no Christian man can endure them Who would endure such a Divinity as permitteth one simply to deny that Jesus is the Son of God or that he sometimes dyed and rose again Wherefore if those things are both * Vnheard or incredible uncouth and intollerable they ought also to imagine that their interpretation is alike intollerable whereby they say that when Christ simply saith the Son can do nothing of himself he speaketh of himself according to the humane Nature only whereas according to the divine Nature he can do all things of himself whence it
followeth that it may be absolutely said of him that he can do all things of himself no less than he is absolutely affirmed to be the most high God Again They with whom we have to do do either confess that it may be simply or without any limitation added said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self or they do not confess If they do confess why do they distinguish between the humane and divine Nature Why do they say that the words of Christ whereof we treat are not to be understood of him according to the divine but according to the humane Nature Will they perhaps say that also the divine Nature can do nothing of it self according to the humane Who seeth not that such a fashion of speaking and limiting is ridiculous Will you say that the soul of a man hath not in it self according to the body a power of thinking understanding reasoning Or that the body is not fleshly thick tall or low according to the soul But be it that it is lawful having expresly added such a limitation to deny these things of the soul as doth indeed agree unto it but do not agree unto the body and contrarily of the body such as agree to it but do not agree to the soul will it be presently lawful to do the same simply and without any limitation Who ever heard say that that should simply be taken away from the whole which doth indeed agree thereunto because it agreeth not to the other part of the same whole How then could that be simply taken away from the divine Nature which doth agree to the same namely to do all things of it self because it agreeth not to the humane Nature But if the Adversaries confess not that it may simply be said of the divine Nature of Christ that it can do nothing of it self their Opinion touching the Person of Christ falls to the ground for if the Son of God is a Person having supream Divinity it is necessary that whatsoever is simply either denied or affirmed of him may also simply be either denied or affirmed of his divine Nature For a person having supream Deity is nothing but the very divine Nature subsisting as many of the Adversaries confess and we in the second Book will shew †Sect. 1. Chap. 4. Since therefore it is simply denied of the Son of God that he can do nothing of himself whereas that same cannot be simply denied of the divine Nature it must be confessed that the Son of God is not a Person of supream Deity Neither can they escape the force of this Argument who hold a divine Person to be not the divine Nature but a subsistence of the divine Nature For first from this very place of John it is evinced either that their Opinion touching a divine Person is false or that the Son of God is not a Person endued with Supream Divinity For a Subsistence worketh nothing neither of it self nor by the shewing of another For the very nature subsisting worketh all things either by a faculty of its own or such as was received from another A Subsistence hath no faculty neither from its self nor received from another But the Son of God worketh all things by the shewing of the Father Wherefore he is not a Subsistence If the Son of God is not a subsistence either a Person of the supream Divinity will not be a Subsistence or the Son of God will not be a Person of supream Divinity Furthermore if a Subsistence did work any thing it would work in such a manner as is agreeable to the Nature wherein it is and with which it is really the same But the divine Nature wherein the divine Subsistence is and with which as the Adversaries speak it is really the same worketh of it self and not by the shewing of another wherefore the divine Subsistence also should be said to work after that manner nor could it less simply be denied that it can work of it self than the same may be denied of the divine Nature Add hereunto that it would no less ridiculously be said that the divine Subsistence can do nothing of it self according to the humane Nature than that the divine Nature can do nothing of it self acccording to the humane Nature Besides were the words of Christ to be restrained as the Adversaries would have it Christ had not spoken to the matter For it appeareth from the very place and all confess that Christ answereth the objection of the Jews and defineth those words of his namely My Father worketh hitherto and I work from all crime of Blasphemy and Arrogancy For the Jews objected it to him as a most grievous crime because by such words he calleth God his own Father making himself equal to God as we read ver 18. For thus they reason He that maketh himself equal to God committeth a crime to be expiated by death But Christ maketh himself equal to God in that he calleth God his own Father and maketh himself equal to him in working In which Argument it is spoken of whole Christ and not only of one Nature of his especially the less worthy For neither Christ when he affirmed My Father worketh and I work spake only one part of himself and that the less worthy but of himself as he was the Son of God and consequently God as the Adversaries themselves urge who are wont to object against us those words of the 18th verse to prove from thence that Christ is God by Nature because he both called God his own Father and made himself equal to God neither of which can agree to him who is not God by Nature To which Argument of the Jews Christ answereth Verily verily I say unto you the Son can do nothing of himself What would the answer make to the purpose if Christ should here speak of himself according to the humane Nature only when the question was concerning him either whole how great so ever he is or according to the divine Nature as the Adversaries will have it How had he defended his own words wherein he had spoken of his whole self or of himself as the most high God It is objected against him thou makest thy self equal to God namely in that thou makest thy self the Son of God and by that means dost as the Adversaries will have it arrogate to thy self a divine Nature Christ answers according to their Opinion the Son can do nothing of himself according to the humane Nature and is therein unequal to the Father What 's this to the matter But if you hold with us that Christ spake of himself whole how great soever he was you will find that he spake very pertinently to the matter and solidly confuted the crime that was objected against him For he answers that he doth not simply and absolutely make himself equal to God although in respect of working he compareth himself unto God because although he doth all things
he no less than the Father should have an high Priest and this Priest be himself since neither any cause can be imagined nor can it any way be that the Father should have a Priest and Christ not have one if he be God no less than the Father yea the same God in number with him as may appear from those things which we before spake concerning the title of a Mediator But where is even the least hint in the holy Scripture whereby it may appear that Christ hath an high Priest as well as the Father Who seeth not that it is very absurd to hold that the Person of Christ offereth to himself wherefore the Priesthood of Christ is utterly inconsistent with the divine Nature which is held to be in him CHAP. XXIX The nine and twentieth Argument That Christ was raised up by the Father THe sixth Argument of this kind may be drawn from the places wherein Christ is said to have been raised by another namely his Father which reason is so much the more to be urged because the contrary thereof is urged by the Adversaries For they say Christ raised himself and by this means clearly demonstrated that he was the Son of God begotten out of his Essence and consequently the most high God But this Argument partly falls to the ground by it self in that it is grounded on a false Supposition as we will by and by demonstrate partly is weakned by another erroneous Oppinion of the same Adversaries For they hold that the Soul or Spirit of Christ which they also hold concerning the spirits of other men after he was dead did notwithstanding perform such actions as agree to none but Substances that are actually alive and understand by themselves Some say that it went down into Hell or Purgatory and brought the Souls of the Fathers out of I know not what Prison or Limbus But if the Soul of Christ even during his death did exercise such actions what hinders but that the same Soul entring into his own Body and former habitation should again unite it unto it self and by divine Power raise it up For could the Soul of Christ furnisht with divine Power do less than his whole humanity when he lived perform by the same divine Power could it do less than for example sake some one of the Apostles to whom Christ sometimes gave the power of raising the * Mat. 10.8 dead and of †Act. 9.40.41 20.9 c. whom we read that some of them did actually raise the dead ‖ 1 King 17.17 c 2 King 4.18 c. Which very thing we read likewise of Elijah and Elisha Wherefore we will far more rightly invert the Argument of the Adversaries and retort upon them that weapon which they endeavour to hurl at us For if Christ were the most high God his raising should be ascribed to himself as the true and chief Author But it is not attributed to him but to the Father as the true and chief Author thereof yea it is very openly signified that Christ iâ— you speak properly Arg. 29 That Christ was raised up by the Father did not raise himself Wherefore he is not the most high God The truth of the Major as they call it is manifest enough For none doubteth if Christ be the most high God that he did altogether raise himself and that it was most suitable that he should raise himself For since it follows from that Opinion that the humane Nature according to which Christ dyed was personâ—â—â—y united to the divine it could at no hand be that the humane Nature should perpetually abide in death and consequently in as much as that union according to their Opinion can never be dissolved that a dead corps should in an indissoluble and eternal tye be united to the divine Nature Furthermore if the humane Nature were to be raised by whom rather was it to be raised than by the divine Nature of the same Christ which both could of it self very easily perform it and by reason of that most strict union did owe this benefit unto the Nature that was joyned unto it Wherefore whether you consider the ability of performing it the divine Nature of Christ would have been the prime cause of that work for the Office of performing it it would have chiefly lain on that Nature How then would not Christ have been the true and chief Author of his own Resurrection As for the Minor there are so many and so clear Testimonies of the holy Scripture which make the Father the true and chief Author of the Resurrection of Christ and not Christ himself yea very openly take away this work from Christ though even the thing it self namely his death doth sufficiently take it away that it is a wonder that any one should doubt of it For first in certain places it is openly said that the Father raised Christ or that God raised his Son But who is that God whose Son Christ is but the Father The former is recorded by Paul in the beginning of the Epistle to the Galathians whilst he speketh thus Paul an Apostle not from men nor by man but by Jesus Christ and God the Father that raised him up from the dead The latter it is affirmed by Peter Acts 3. ult To you God having raised up his Son first sent him blessing you And Paul chap. 13.33 doth indeed assert the same whilst he saith And we declare unto you the Promise which was made unto our Fathers that God hath fulfilled it unto us their Children having raised up Jesus as it is also written in the second Psalm Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee Now that he raised him from the dead no more to return to corruption thus he said c. From which words it appeareth that he who said unto Christ thou art my Son this day â— begot thee which indeed is no other than the Father raised him from the dead The same Apostle saith 1 Thes 1.9 10. Ye turned to God from Idols to serve the true and living God and is expect his Son out of Heaven whom he raised from the dead even Jesus who delivereth us from the Wrath to come Where in like manner God is said to have raised his Son from the dead To these are added very many other places wherein it is simply written that God raised Christ of which number we will here set down only one or two with the words at large contenting our selves to quote the rest Thus therefore speaketh Peter Acts 2.24 Whom Jesus of Nazareth God raised up having loosed the Throws of Hell in that it was impossible that he should be held by it For David faith concerning him I saw the Lord alwayes before me because he is at my right hand that I may not be moved Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoyceth Moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope For thou wilt not leave my Soul in Hell nor suffer
throughly fastned to it the humane nature also is no more joyned to one subsistence than to another and so that union is terminated no more to one than to another and the humane nature no more subsists in the subsistence of one person than of another Yea if there could be any difference between these subsistences it should subsist rather in the subsistence of the Father as being that which is the first in the divine nature and upon which the two others do as it were lean than of the Son and holy Spirit Which that it may be made so much the more clear that is to be remembred which we shewed before that they hold that there is a certain real union between the two natures and moreover that the one nature is joyned to the other nature first and by it self but to those things which are in the nature only consequently For nothing can really be joyned and united with the moste of the thing but with the thing it self We see that in the conjunction of body and soul which example among all other things they judge to be most like to that hypostatical union For the body is first and by it self joyned unto the soul consequently to those things which are in the Soul or to its modes as to existeâ—ce or if there be any other thing which they may be pleased to call a mode But if the body he only secondarily joyned to those things which are in the soul it cannot be joyned more to one of them than to another unless perhaps one be more or before in the soul than the rest But it is already shewed that the subsistence of the Son is not in this manner in the divine Essence But moreover although in some regard the humane nature should be more joyned to the subâ—â—stence of the â—on yet it would suffice to the incarnation of the whole Trinity that the whole Essence of the Trinity is united with it For how is not that whole incarnated the whole Essence of which is incarnated Add that since those subsistences exist not without the Essence yea are in very deed the same with it it is necessary that those subsistences also be incarnated together with it Therefore the whole Trinity is incarnated hath sufferred satisfied the Father for sins Oh egregious Divinity which brings forth such fruits But let us go on to shew the absurdity of that Doctrine CHAP. VI. The second Argument Because the second person of the Divinity would cease to be a person SEcondly it follows from the same Doctrine that one person of the Divinity hath ceased to be a person for it became a part of Christ constituted of a divine and humane Nature But it is of the Essence of a Suppositum and consequen ly also of a person that it be not a part of another thing as it is confessed by all The Confirmation and Defence of the Argument The Adversaries confess and it is a thing too manifest that Christ is a certain whole consistiâ—g of a divine and huâ—ane nature Although they say that he is not an essential whole but personal W ich thing doth not infringe our Argumentation but establish it rather For what Is it not equally repugnant to a person to be the part of a personal whole that is of a person and suppositum as to be the part of an essential whole Yea verily most of all because by this means there should be two persons in one person the one a part the other a whole Therefore that which perhaps some may think is nothing that the distinction between an essential and personal whole which otherwise they use is pertinent to the subverting our reason Although also otherwise in vain is a personal whole feigned which â—ogether is not an essential But there is no need now to demonstrate that What then Will they say perhaps that the humane Nature of Christ is not a paâ—t of him Thither some of the Adversaries seem to incline although many no less contradict them than that most received opinion with the defenders concerning that â—ypostatical union for so many ages past For what is more usual with them than to oppose Christ to either nature severalâ—y taken Whereto pertaineth that distinction between whole Christ and the whole of Christ Besides if the humane Nature be not a part of the person of Christ it will be an accident of that person A g 2. The Son would cease to be a person an accident I say such as some call physical or predicable For it is easie to be shewed both by reason and the authority of the Philosopher that it is an accident which is inherent not as a part and may be absent from that in which it is Now if the humane nature of Christ be not a part of Christ all that which we have said agrees to it For it is in the person of Christ and subsists in it as the Adversaries would But now it will not be a part Lastly it may be absent from that in which it is to wit the divine Person or Nature of Christ For should the divine Nature or Person perish if the humane should be separated from it I say not that it shall be separated which they deny shall ever be But if it should be separated the divine Person should not be destroyed which is enough in this place For there are also inseparable accidents as they are caled in the Schools which although they are never separated from the subjectum yet it is therefore said that they may be absent from it because if it were supposed that they are separated from that in which they are yet it would not be necessary that the thing it self should perish But if the humane nature be an accident of the person of Christ how is the person of Christ or the Son of God a man Christ might indeed be said to be humane but not a man For that which is an accident to another is not predicated of it synonymically or univocally but paronymically So a Cup to which Gold adhers as an accident is said to be golden or gilded not a gold an Iron in which is fire is said to be fired not a fire and so in the rest But besides how is not that a whole which is one thing and consisting of two things separable in their nature But such is Christ For he is some one thing consisting of a divine and humane nature either of which in its nature is separable although this according to their opinion is not to be separated How therefore is not the humane Nature a part of Christ If it be then the other part will be the divine Nature having its subsistences that is the divine person which hath assumed the humane But a person as we have seen cannot be the part of another 〈◊〉 â—hat indeed a suppositum or person Perhaps some will say that the Iron fired is some thing united of an Iron and Fire and yet the Iron
and existent from all eternity No indeed but because the Father hath committed all judgment to him For so he saith The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgement to the Son that all men should honour the Son as they honour the Father of which thing we have spoken more in its place Since therefore we honour him because of all judgement given to him by the Father since we adore him because of his sublime power * See the Appendix of chap. 18 Sect. 2. Lib. 1. because of a name given him above every name †Phil. 2.9 c. We bow the knee to him and profess him to be our divine Lord placed at the Fathers right hand in heavenly places we reverence him as the judge and avenger of all our deeds words counsels and the inmost retirements of our mind no otherwise than as the Father do we detract any part of due honour from him But would to God that many who that they may testifie their love toward the Son of God honour him with false praises would shew more earnestness in that thing in which Christ placeth the true love towards himself and that they who would be liberal towards him of that thing which is anothers were not so strait handed in that which is their own And that indeed is that they may observe Christs precepts †John 14.21 For so saith Chrâ—st He that hath my Commandments and keepeth them he it is who loveth me Herein herein must we all throughly labour herein the greatest love towards Christ is to be shewed which if we perform we shall deny him no due honour But verily it is more easie to accumulate praises and titles of honours without measure than to execute commands as we see it more easie in humane affaires to flatter and adorn another even with too many praises than to perform the office of a true friend or faithful servant We take nothing here to our selves being rightly conscious to our selves of our defectiveness neither detract we from all others the praise of piety whilst we desire more of it in many neither are we more solicitous of anothers than of our own duty But yet we could wish less were ascribed to that love towards Christ which conâ—â—sts only in opinion and specious words and that it were at length as it ought of right to be brought into suspicion by them who too much please themselves in it Besides that we may likewise pass to other incommodities and absurdities which flow from the opinion of the Adversaries concerning more persons in the most high God they themselves who attribute to Christ false honour do in the mean time either take away from him that which is true or very much diminish and obscure it Therefore they themselves do that which wrongfully they object to us and whilst they endeavour to lift up Christ higher they unawars thrust him down from his own throne and height For that opinion touching of the second person of the Trinity or the only begotten Son of God who was begotten from all eternity out of the Fathers Essence doth so obscure the true Divinity not only of the Father but also of Jesus Christ himself born of the Virgin that it doth almost extinguish it Foâ— first it doth not permit that Jesus Christ himself that very man himself I say who in time was born of a Virgin may be acknowledged for the only begotten Son of God and so called in the holy Scriptures by way of excellency but for a certain accession of him or a nature assumed to him For although the Adversaries call the man Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God yet it is not done by them but by communication of properties by which those things which agree to Christ according to one nature are attributed to him described by the other nature But that humane substance it self consisting of a body and rational soul which they fear to call a man is not with them by any means of it self the only begotten Soâ— of God but a nature assumed by him Whence also they are wont to compare it to a garment which he hath put on Therefo e that humane substance that is if you judge of the thing according to truth the man Jesus Christ himself shall be no more the only begotten Son of God than our Body is the Soul because this is cloathed with that and knit with it in so straight a bond But it manifestly appears by those things which we have said before * Lib. 1. Sect. 2. Chap. 31. out of the holy Scriptures concerning the reason whereby Jesus is the Son of God that the man himself born of a Virgin nor any other before or besides him is the only begotten Son of God How then doth not that opinion of the adversaries lessen or rather take away his true glory To which is added that the same opinion casts down the man Christ out of the Kingly Throne in which he was placed by God and permits us not to acknowledge sincerely that he is made by God Lord and Christ For these things happen not but to a person less than the most high God such as with them neither is the man Christ or as they call it the humane nature nor his divine person Not this because it is the most high God and therefore no whit less than he not that because with them it is not a person nor can be if it subsist in another person And to what purpose is that power of the humane nature if it cannot exercise it by it self For nothing can act by it self if it be not a Suppositum but God himself only acts according to it To what purpose is a double empire in the same person which can be exercised but once by him If any one would joyn the Moon in an indissoluble tye with the Sun he should make its light superfluous and useless For neither should the Moon impart its light to us the Sun illustrating all things by its beams and as it were obscuring the Moon it self But the same disjoyned from the Sun imparts such light to the Earth however received from the Sun that it is called in the holy Book together with it a great Light * Gen. 1.16 Psal 136.7 So also the man Christ if you joyn him into one person with God he loseth that sacred splendor of his empire majesty being obscured made useless by the glory splendor of the supream divinity For that supream divinity would by it self illustrate all things sufficiently by the beams of its power wisdom goodness But if he be distinct from the most high God as in nature so also in person being as it were illustrated by his beams he imparts a most comfortable light to the Earth and makes that those who could not lift up tâ—eir eyes to the splendour of the supream divinity and behold it by its self may contemplate it in a sort more mildly
To which may be added that place of the Epiâ—le to the Hebrews chap. 5.7 which we formerly * Chap. 17 of this Section conside ed when we discoursed of the prayers which Christ poured out to the Father for it is thence evinced by a double reason that Christ could not raise himself from the dead and consequently did not partly because he did with so earnest prayers with so earnest cryings seconded also with tears beseech the Father to do it partly because he to whom he made such supplications is thus described and distinguished from Christ namely that he was able to save him from death Conceâ—ning both which things see what we have formerly said Finally that place Ephes 1.19 20. may be added which we have formerly alleaged where it is shewn how great Power how great Might God the Father did put forth when he raised Christ from the dead and set him at his right hand in the Heavens But what need would there have been of so great Power or how could it at all have been employed by God the Father if Christ had raised himself by a Power altogether proper and natural to him Now if you say that the same Power did also belong to Christ as being common to the Father with the Son there can no cause be alleaged why it should he said to be put forth rather by the Father than by Christ in as much as we have already shewn that the contrary ought rather to be done The third cause wherefore that first exception ought to be esteemed of no weight is this namely that such a sence doth exceedingly weaken Pauls Argument whereby from the Resurrection of Christ he asserteth the truth of our resurrection as he chiefly doth 1 Cor. 15.11 c and so throweth down the strongest prop of our hope For Paul doth thence shew that we shall arise because Christ arose Bâ—t if Christ raised himself from the dead by a power that was inbred and altogether natural to him and could not but raise himself the consequence is of no force For how followeth it if Christ raised himself by a power that was proper and altogether natural and could not but raise himself that we also who are altogether distitute of that Power and whom our nature doth not vindicate from eternal death shall assuredly rise There is now scarce any need to speak of the latter exception which is that by the name of God who is said to have raised Christ either the whole Trinity wherein Christ also is contained or the divine Essence which was no less in Christ than in the Father may be understood For we have brought Arguments even out of those places where the Adversaries themselves dare not apply that exception wherein is shewn that Christ did not raise himself from the dead the contrary whereof is required by that exception But furthermore who doth not understand that when God or he that raised Jesus from the dead is distinguished from Christ a person distinct from Christ is understood which is in this place sufficient for us That a person is understood is intimated by the name God which we have * Chap. 1. of this Section before shewn to be proper to a Person and also by the action of raising which agreeth to nothing but a Person but that one Person is understood the very word God as also that description He that raised Jesus Christ from the dead being uttered in the singular number doth manifest For neither is the word God a collective neither is that expression wherein mention is made of him who raised Christ from the dead general and common but proper and singular but the distinction between Christ and him that raised Christ from the dead is manifest from the very places Nor as we have else where hinted would he escape the Tax of Nestorianism who by the word God understanding Christ himself by name Chap 18. of this Section should say that he raised Christ or did any like thing about him for it would be all one as if he should say the Son of God raised Christ But what need more words When the very Scripture explaineth it self for what it in one place attributeth to God simply named it elsewhere openly attributeth to the Father either expressing the very name of the Father or describing him whom God raised by the appellation of his Son If therefore there were any obscurity or ambiguity in those places wherein the raising of Christ is simply attributed unto God without the addition of any other note implying that it was spoken of the Father yet would the other places shew that they are to be understood of the Father For the obscure passages are to be explained by the plain ones the confused ambiguous passages by the distinct ones But there is no ambiguity no obscurity in the word God since there can no place of the Scripture be alleaged where the name God put subjectively and also distinguished from Christ both which happen in these Testimonies is taken of any other but the Father Now whereas certain Testimonies of the Scripture are alleaged wherein the raising of Christ seemeth to be attributed to himself as that he himself said that he would in three dayes raise up the Temple namely of his Body John 2.20 21. and that he had power both to lay down his soul and to take or receive the same again for so the greek word may indifferently be rendered John 10.18 These passages evince no other than that Christ was the cause of his Resurrection and that it was so put in his hands as I may say that it could be taken away from him and interrupted by none After which manner the same Christ saith in Luke That he that shall lose his Soul shall find it chap. 9.24 or quicken it chap. 17.33 And John saith of them who believed in Christ and so are born of God that the word namely Christ Gave them Power to become the Sons of God that is to become immortal John 1.13 For othrewise so few Testimonies whereof the first as every one seeth is altogether figurative ought at no hand to be opposed to so many and so evident Testimonies and Reasons drawn from thence wherewith it is evinced that this action is properly to be attributed not to Christ but to the Father Indeed more might be said of these two places which are alleaged to the contrary but it is not now our intention and work to confute the Arguments of the Adversaries but with Arguments to assert our own Opinion Wherefore let it now suffice to have touched these places We Meddle not here with the exception of two Natures in Christ for the intelligent Reader if he shall consider both our Argument or Arguments rather and also what we have spoken of that distinction in the former chapters will easily understand that it cannot here have place CHAP. XXX The thirtieth Argument That Christ is called the Image of the invisible
agree because they all are both subsistences existing in the divine Essence and something in which they do mutually differ and are from among themselves specie or in the species distinguished But neither do the Adversaries admit such a composition of the genus and specifical difference in the divine Persons And it is impossible that those things should differ in that species and definition the essence of which is one in number For those things which differ in the species and definition they do differ by this very thing also in the Essence since the species pertains to the Essence and the definition of a thing explains the Essence which where it is altogether one the definition also is in very deed one Lastly that subsistence of which it is here spoken doth forthwith make the substance in which it is incommunicable to more suppositums Therefore where there is one subsistence the rest are thence forthwith excluded For if there would be more subsistences there would be more suppositums Although here it is sufficient for us to have shewed that there are not more suppositums in the same substance But that that subsistence makes the substance in which it is incommunicable is manifest from this that by reason of it the suppositum is incommunicable to more suppositums And if the suppositum also the substance which by reason of that subsistence becomes and is constituted a suppositum For every form that which it bestows on the whole bestows also on the matter in which it is or on that which answers to the matter and unless it would bestow it it should not bestow it no not to the whole which is constituted of it For so far it makes the whole such as far as it makes the matter of the whole which was such in potentia such in actu There is the same reason of those things which by analogy answer to these But here the form is the subsistence the essence or substance wherein the subsistence is and with which it makes the suppositum or rather which for that reason that it hath that subsistence is the suppositum it self answers to the matter But if a body 〈◊〉 long as it hath the soul in it self is and is called animate as long as it hath the power of feeling sensitive although these forms add something real to the body much more it may and ought to be said concerning the divine Essence having in it self that subsistence and incommunicability that it it self both doth subsist by it self and is incommunicable Since these forms do add nothing really to it as the Adversaries themselves contend But these things although they may be of right accounted for a new reason yet we shall reckon them with the former CHAP. VI. The sixth Argument That the divine Persons should be at once both communicable and incommunicable IN the sixth place that may be alleaged that it follows from the common doctrine of the Trinity that the divine Persons are both incommunicable and communicable and so suppositums and not suppositums persons and not persons For it is manifest among all that every suppositum and further also every person ought to be incommunicable to another suppositum or person whether one or more Whence also in the definition of a person they commonly express incommunicability But if the divine Essence the same in number be common or as they speak communicable to more suppositums or divine persons the suppositums also themselves and those persons will be communicable to more suppositums and persons For those things the Essence of which and that indeed the whole is communicable to more suppositums are themselves communicable to more suppositums For nothing can be more communicated to another if so be that that be another thing and not rather the same than that whose whole and the same essence in number is communicated to another and universally nothing can more agree to any thing than that which agrees to it in respect of the Essence and that the whole Therefore if the whole Essence of the divine persons be communicable to more suppositums those persons themselves will be communicable to more suppositums Wherefore they will be together both communicable and incommunicable and so suppositums and not suppositums persons and not persons CHAP. VII Arg. 7 From the Analogy with things created The seventh Argument drawn from the Analogy with the things created where it is shewed That unless there be held one person of God there must be held infinite in number VVE will make the last Argument of this kind that which can be easily understood even by the most rude men and concerning which it is believed by the Adversaries that it is easie to be eluded to wit that we see in things created that there is only one person not more of one intelligent substance and that we may extend this thing further that there cannot be more Suppositums except there be also more Substances and Essences in number Why then should we not hold the same thing concerning God We shall see by and by the reason of the consequence when we have examined the exception of the Adversaries by which they endeavour to subvert this Argument For they say that there is a different consideration of a substance created and uncreated for that is finite this infinite Therefore the finite indeed if it be one in number cannot subsist in more Suppositums or Persons but the infinite may But this difference is of no moment in that matter whereof we treat For then at length it might be of some moment if a person uncreated should not as well be infinite as the Essence or Substance in which it is believed to subsist or a part of something could be a Suppositum or Person Now since the case is otherwise here is the same reason or consideration of a finite and infinite Person For why cannot a finite Substance constitute but one person namely because a person or suppositum compriseth the whole substance in it not some part of it neither can the same substance at the same time according to the same thing be twice the same and consequently neither be twice a suppositum twice a person But there is the same reason also in a divine Substance since each divine Person comprehends the whole divine Substance neither doth or can take to it self only some part of it unless it cease to be a suppositum or person Wherefore an infinite Substance can no more have more Suppositums or Persons in it self than a finite To which it is added that if by reason of the difference of the finite and infinite there should be also difference in the number of Suppositums it would follow that this difference in respect of number should be infinite For the infinite distance which is between a finite and infinite Substance and which is thought to bring forth that difference of the number of persons requires this Therefore the Persons in the infinite Substance of God should be
it self doth not loose the reason or nature of a Suppositum but only the Fire subsisting in it Wherefore although Christ be somewhat consisting of a divine person humane nature yet not that but this looseth the reason or nature of a person because this subsists in that For in this part there is the same reason of a person and a suppositum because that of which we dispute whether it befal a person may therefore befal it or not befal it because it may befal or not befal a suppositum But if there be in that Iron a substantial Fiâ—e and that Fire as some part of it makes that Suppositum which is called an Iron fired certainly the Iron taken by it self without that Fire will be no more a Suppoâ—â—tum For a Suppositum should be a part of a Suppositum Neither behoves it any whit that nevertheless we should call that Iron a Suppositum For we would not call that Iron severed from the Fire a Suppositum but conjoyned with it although the denomination be made from the Iron as the chief But if that substantial Fire together with the Iron doth not make one Suppositum or is not a part of it first I see not how it may be said that it hath lost the reason oâ— nature of a Suppositum For it will be so in the Iron as the air spread through the pores of the Iron But this is in the Iron only as it is contained in a certain place neither in the mean time doth it cease to be a Suppositum as neither the water insinuating it self in the spaces of more loose bodies and diffused through them Besides this example will not serve the turn because we â—ave demonstrated the humane naâ—ure to be a part of Christ Let the Adversaries chuse now which they will of these things which we have said of the Fire for there is no need that we should decide that controversie and they shall â—nd that that instance or example of the Iron fired which in this thing they often use makes nothing to overthrow our reason CHAP. VII The third Argument Because the most high God and man are Disparatums THe third reason is because by their opinion it is necessary that Christ be together both God to wit the most hiâ—h God and Man and that God is man and man is God But the most high God and Man are Disparatums But one and the same Subjectum cannot be together two Disparatums nor one of the Disparatums be the other or as they speak in the Schools the Disparatums cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum univocally or in quid and indeed each severally without any limitation or adjection They cannot alâ—o be said one of another univocally or in quid unless perâ—aps by a metaphor or similitude as if I say a man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox But Figures here have no place For the Adversaries would have it to be so properly and are constrained so to hold partly because of their own doctrine of Christ partly because of plain expressions of the holy Scriptures Of which thing somethiâ—g shall be said afterwards But why the disparatums in that manner we have said cannot be said of one and the same subjectum muc less of one another this is the reason because the disparatums are opposite although in a looseâ— signification than Aristotle took that term And the Adversaries do not deny it For they see that the disparatums contain in them a hidden contradiction which is the greatest and unreconcileable opposition Arg. 3 God and man are Disparatums For by the essential differences by which they are opposed to each other they exclude mutually each other and the one is denyed by the other So a Man and a Horse differ as a man and not a man rational and not rational a horse and not a horse A Man and a Plant differ not only as a man and not a man but also as animal and not animal or as sensitive and not sensitive and by how much farther any thing is distant from another by so much more essential differences which they call generical are found between them and by so much more contradictions arise between them But now if any thing in the genus of the substance be distant from the man it is God if yet our Adversaries wil permit us to râ—fer God to the Genus of the Substance to hold which here there is no need Yea if we exclude him from the Genus of the Substance so much the farther will he be distant from man and so much the more differences will arise between him and man and contradictions which cause that they be opposed one to the other For man and God differs as man and not man aâ—imal and not animal natural body and not natural body and if thâ—re as yet any other differences be found by whicâ— God is severed from the genuses of a man Therfore God and man cannot be predicated of the same Subjectum as Christ is simply and absolutely and that vnivocally or in quid Neither indeed may you think those things are said of Christ synecdochycally the names of parts being put for the whole For first both words as elsewhere so also when they are used of Christ do denote nothing else but the person of Christ But the person is a whole not a part Besides if they were only predicated of Christ synecdochycally I might most rightly say Christ is not God Christ is not man yea so only should I speak properly and accurately as I say most truly that a man is not a soul a man is not flesh to wit taken distinctly from the spirit For this expression is proper and accurate the other improper and figurate to wit a man is a soul a man is flesh But who would brook him that sayes Christ is not God is not man Add that hower the parts are wont to be said synecdochycally of the whole yet are they not wont to be predicated mutually of themselves For I do not say flesh is the soul or spirit or on the contrary the soul is flesh But here God and man are predicated of each other mutually There is no need to speak of the Metaphor whereby sometimes the Disparatums are predicated of the same or mutually of each other as if I say some man is a Lyon or Fox that is like a Lyon or Fox For Christ neither after the Adversaries or our Opinion is said to be metaphorically God or man but both properly and according to them essentially according to us man indeed essentially but God in the same manner in which he is said to be a King which thing doth not reach to the Essence Not a few of the Adâ—ersaries have seen this knot which when they could not loose would notwithstanding say that this is an unusual maner of predicating and certainly it is unusual because it saith that which in its nature is impossible since as we have
not call the humane nature in Christ a man and they say not a miss that this phrase savours of Nestorianism if any say God assâ—med man For it should be said God or the divine Nature assumeâ— a humanity or humane nature Besides if the humane Nature of Christ be in very deed a man and the son of man no man may doubt that those things are to be understood of it which are said of the man Jesus Christ or the Son of man as Christ calls himself in the holy * Mat. 16 13 15 16 John 3.14 16. 5.26 27. 1 Tim. 2.5 Scriptures For there were not two men in Christ But that son of man is called the Son of God or on the contrary the Son of God is called the Son of man The man Christ is called the Mediator and other things are attributed to him which by all mens confession agree not but to a person Certainly if that man be not a person it will be lawful so to argue The son of man is not a person the son of God is that son of man therefore that son of God is not a person But it is manifest by the definition of a man that the humane nature of Christ which they fear to call a man is in very deed and properly a man For to which the definition agrees to it also the thing defined agrees For as much as the thing defiâ—ed and the definition or the thing comprehended in the definition differ not but in the manner of explaining otherwise they are altogether the same thing But now doth not the definition of a man agree to the humane Nature of Christ Waâ— not it as all other men a â—ational animal Of its being â—ational there is no doubt for his Nature had not been humane if it had not been rational Of its being an animal also â—e ought not to doubt who knows that the animal when it is made the genus of a man is no other thing than a body endued with a sensitive soul Wâ—at was not the humane nature in Christ such a body Was it not a body that is a corporeal substance Was it not endued with a sensitive soul He hath put off all sense and reason who dares to deny it Therefore the humane nature of Christ is a man But of its singularity or individuality who doubts But if he be a man he also is the son of man as well because the holy Scriptures put promiscuously the son of man and a man as also is commonly known as because he who being a man is born of a woman cannot but be in pâ—oper speaking the son of man Perhaps some one will say that the humane nature of Christ to speak properly and accurately is neither a man nor an animal nor a body but Christ endued with humane nature is both a man and an animal and a body because a man and animal are concretums and likewise a body when it is put for the genus of a man but that the humane nature of Christ is an abstractum But we on the contrary if the humane nature of Christ speaking properly and acurately be a corporeal substance which no man can deny but he that believes not sense any more the same also is an animal since it is enâ—ued with a sensitive soul and further a man since it is also endued with a rational soul Wherefore that which they say that it is some abstractum and call it humanity or the humane nature not a man rests on their bare opinion But besides what is with them humanity corporeity animality abstract They will not say that they are universals as it were severed in the mind from singulars which sort of abstâ—actums we willingly admit in the kind of the substances for this makes nothing here to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is singular and one in number Also they will not say that it is the form of a man animal or body For neither doth t is make any whit to the purpose since the humane nature of Christ is noâ— the form of a man but something endued with a form not a part of the humane essence but the whole essence What therefore are in their opinion those abstractums Are they the singular nature of a man an animal or some body abstracted from all these things which are not required to constitute it and considered barely by it self First what constraines to consider so the humane nature of Christ since in it there were many things not belonging to the constitution of the essence of the humanity it self as in other men And that I may more nearly touch those things which are wont commonly to be looked on in such concretums there was in him an existence proper to singulars of which no regard is had in the definition of the species and genus there were differences which they call individuating it was existent in a certain place in a certain time I say it was a being in very deed existing and as other substances subsisting but such things are not wont to be called abstractums Besides I cannot see why a whole essence and in all the parts absolute which is really existing although it be abstracted in the mind from those things which are in it deserves not the name of its species or genus why I say this humane nature which is indeed existent for of this we speak ought not to be called a man or this entire nature of an animal animal In vain the latter Philosophers seem here to have sought a distinction unknown to the Antients and by reason of difference of words although also it was necessary to feign those simple abstract words of the substances as of the humanity taken for the humane nature animality corporeity to have brought in a certain difference of the thing and signification it self But perhaps they will say that the humane nature of Christ subsists not by it self but subsists in the person of the Son of God by whose proper subsistence it is sustained Therefore he either ought not to be called a man or if he be called a man yet he is not a person But that I may omit now other things to be said a little after that subsistence which they say the humane nature of Christ wants either appertains to the constitution of the nature of a man or appertains not to it If it appertains to it the humane nature of Christ without it will not be entire and so Christ shall not be a perfect man contrary to the mind of the holy Scriptures and the Adversaries themselves If it appertains not to it its absence will no whit hinder but that the humane nature of Christ may be properly called a man Thirdly It is proved by this that the humane nature of Christ is a person because it in proper speaking doth act and sustains certain offices But aâ—tions as often we have minded after the common opinion of â—â—e Schools are not properly but of