By the way I will speake this thing , that we are constreined to vse new speeches , that we may auoid new errors , or els old ones new polished and trimmed , with which manie men at this daie do intangle & snare themselues : for , as in proper place heerafter we will shew , there haue risen & sprong vp within our remembrance certeine men , who renewing partlie the error of Eutyches , & partlie of Nestorius , haue in stead of the word Godhead , brought in diuinitie , and therfore we are inforced to distinguish Godhead from diuinitie . And verilie Paule spake not rashlie where hee saith that the fulnes of the godhead dwelleth in Christ , where he vseth also , Colloss. 2.9 . not the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is diuinitie , but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is deitie or Godhead : The Gretians do in their termes more fitlie expresse religion than the Latinists . for the Gretians , I know not by what meane , do much better and more effectuallie expresse these things than the Latins doo , as also in this argument , or matter , I would more gladlie & willingly for plainnesse sake say and vse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is hominitas , if it be lawfull to speake so in Latine , or as you would say , mans nature , or the verie state and condition of mans nature , rather than humanitie or manhood ,

Then we perceiue & vnderstand , that in Christes person , there are two substances , to wit , the Godhead and the manhood , Athanasius . as we say . So speaketh Athanasius in that famous confession of his , saieng that he was consubstantiall , that is , of the selfe same substance with the father , and as he himselfe expoundeth it , God of the substance of the father , and man of the substance of his mother , that is , of the same substance that we are . Afterwards the church vsed the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Synodus Chalcedonensis . that is nature . We confesse , saith the Chalcedon synod , that the sonne consisteth of two natures . Neither in deed was the terme nature vnaduisedlie vsed , or rashlie taken vp , albeit it if we would narrowlie consider the propertie of the word , the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is nature , dooth not agree to the diuinitie , for it is deriued or commeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , The reasons moouing the fathers to vse the word , Nature . to be borne or sprong vp , which agreeth well to a thing created , but not to God himselfe , the creator . Wherefore this seemeth to be the reason , which led and mooued the fathers to vse this word , because they reasoned and disputed against Eutyches , by whome not onelie the verie natures themselues , but also the proprieties of the natures were confounded and shuffled togither . Now because Eutyches did mainteine and defend both these errors , and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , dooth beside the substance comprehend and set out the proprieties also , by which proprieties , that nature is defined , and made to differ from others , therefore it seemeth that the fathers vsed the word nature . In summe , let vs resolue vpon this , and set it downe as an vndoubted truth , that when we say , Christ consisteth of two natures , we mean his deitie and humanitie , that is his Godhead , and mans nature .

Let vs now come to the word Person . Touching the terme person . The later writers haue called that person , which the former called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the Latine writers haue reteined and kept in vse this word person . Now amongst diuines , and in their writings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is substance , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is person , are distinguished after this sort : Substance and person distinguished . vnder the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the plurall number , are meant the persons which are in the common essence or being , hauing the proprietie ioined therevnto , whereby one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a person is separated or distinguished from the other , and by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is substance , God or the Godhead it selfe is signified and meant , but the Father , the sonne , and the Holie spirit , are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is persons . Neither was it rashlie or vnaduisedlie doone , that the church hath vsed the name of person , Boetius . which Boêtius hath defined thus , saieng that it is the communicate propertie of a reasonable substance , because many did throgh very great error , freelie & indifferentlie vse these two words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is person , & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , for one and the selfe same thing . So the Latine writers for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or person , vsed and said substance , euen as the logitians are woont so to call it : wherfore that this doubtfulnesse might be auoided , the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 began to be vsed .

Now let vs speake more plainlie what we call person , or meane by that name , when we intreat of Christ , whether that , which is as it were compounded , of the Godhead taking , and of the flesh taken , so that , if it might be lawfull for vs to diuide Christ into his parts , one part of his person should be his Godhead , and the other part his manhood ? Christes manhood cannot properlie be called a person , and the cause therof . Not so at anie hand , for Christ is not said or called a person properlie in respect of his humanitie or manhood , but of his diuine nature onelie , and yet that not to be separated from his manhood . This is the cause or reason thereof : If Christes humane nature had beene , before it was taken of the diuine nature : that is to say , of the word , there should then be an vnton of two persons , and not of two natures , and therfore Christ should be a person compact of two persons , whervpon would insue manie absurd , vnprofitable , yea altogither wicked & vngodlie matters , whereof nowe there is neyther time nor place to speake . Therefore thus it must be determined , that the diuine nature tooke on it the humane nature , forming and fashioning it : and euen whiles it was formed and fashioned , to haue taken it vnto it selfe , that is to saie , that Christes humane nature was neuer extant , or had beeing , but in the Godhead : wherfore the humane nature in Christ , Christ as hee is God , is a person , & his godhead is a nature , as also his manhood . is not a person , but the humanitie subsisteth , and hath his being in this person of the word , and therfore Christ is not either in imagination or in deede , a double person , but one person consisting of two natures . For the word is both a nature & a person , but the manhood is not of it selfe , anie other thing than a nature , which ( as they speake in the scholes ) is become a person , There is but one sonne of God , as there is but one Christ . and is vpholden in the godhead taking it vnto it selfe , so that now there are not two sonnes , to wit , one eternall and naturall , or of the substance and being of the father , and another created and adopted , but that onelie eternall sonne of GOD , sustaining and vpholding the nature vnited to himself , so that also there are not two Christs , but one onelie , God and man together , from the time that he knitte or vnited to himselfe the nature which he tooke . Now we learne what we may call the person of Christ , What the person of Christ is . to wit , the son of God manifested in the flesh .

Let vs come nowe to the word vnion : for vniting is that whereby these two natures , to wit , the godhead or the person of the word , and the humanitie or manhood are coupled together . The Grecians call this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , What vnion or vniting is . that is , the coupling or ioyning together of two thinges or more , in such sort , that of those many things commyng together , some one certaine thing is compounded or made . There are diuers sorts of vniting . And there are diuers kinds of vnitings : for sometimes nature is vnited with the forme or shape : sometime an accident with the subiect : & sometime parts are vnited and knit vnto parts , to establish or make a whole matter . Vniting , and vnion , or vnitie differ much . Wherefore vniting is one thing , and vnitie or onenesse ( as a man might saye ) is an other thing . For one or onenesse is not a number , neither dooth it necessarily presuppose a number● except in things compounded , but is the beginning of a number . Therefore we hold , that there is in christ , a vnitie or onenesse indeede of the person , and an vniting of the natures .

These words are diligently to be marked , & so much the more , bicause the neglect thereof bringeth forth great confusions & troubles in these disputations & matters . Certainely , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , vniting , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , that is , vnitie , or onenesse , are altogither diuers matters . For in the mysterie of the Trinitie , there is vnitie or onenesse of the essence , and a Trinitie in the persons . Againe , on the other side , there is in Christ an vniting of the natures , and an vnitie or onenesse of the person . Wherefore the Fathers saide well , that in the diuinitie , there is not an other thing , and an other thing , that is to say , In the godhead there is but one simple being . two thinges ( for in the diuinitie there is but one onely and most simple essence or being ) but an other and an other meaning persons . For the Father is one , an other is the Son , and the Holie-ghost is an other . The reason is , because when we say another , we mean the person : when wee saye an other thing , wee meane the nature . Wherefore there is not an other thing in the diuinity , for so there should be multiplication or multitude of Gods . In Christ on the other side , there is an other thing , In Christ there is two natures , but not two persons . and an other thing ( because the godhead is an other thing than the manhood ) and not an other , and an other , bicause Christ is but one subsistence or being , consisting not of two persons , but of mans nature being taken , which hath his subsisting and being in the diuine nature .

Let vs nowe come to a more full and large declaration of the word vnion , or vniting . This kinde and maner of vnion or vniting , Errors cannot be wel confūted , til the personall vnion bee well knowne . is called personall : vppon the true definition of which personall vnion dependeth the confutation of most great errors , wherewith too manie at this present are sicke and infected , as we shall wel perceiue , when we shall come to the matter it selfe : wherefore wee must describe the personall vnion out of the verie worde of God . Isaiah . 7.14 . Matth. 1.23 . First Isaiah saieth , that this our sauiour is Immanuell , that is , God with vs . Iohn . 1.14 . Iohn expounding the fulfilling of this prophecie , saith , that the word became , or was made flesh . Nowe because a thing may be said to be made manie waies , that manner of being made is declared by the Apostle , in the epistle to the Hebrewes , Hebr. 2 . 1● . when hee saith , that the sonne tooke the seed of Abraham . Therefore the word taking , openeth and declareth this saieng of Iohn : And the word was made flesh , and both these laid togither doo also declare , how Christ is God with vs : and all these things laid or ioined togither doo shew and determine what the personall vnion is . They which haue not interpreted that place of Iohn , Three errors by misinterpreting the words of Iohn . out of the place in the epistle to the Hebrues , haue fallen into diuerse errors : for some haue expounded it thus , the word was made flesh , because the word was in sted of the soule vnto the bodie taken , that is to say , that as the soule ioined with the bodie shapeth or fashioneth the man : so the person of the sonne tooke vnto it that bodie , that by that meanes he might become Christ . So that they depriued Christ of a humane soule , & in the sted thereof did substitute the Godhead . Apollinaris taught that the sonne of God tooke onelie the bodie of a man , and not a reasonable soule . Tripartit . hist. lib. 5. cap. 44. & lib. 9. cap. 3. Basil . epist. 74. August . lib. & Hier lib. 9. He was about the yeere 380. But beside that this opinion of Apollinaris is by almost infinit plaine testimonies of scripture refuted , this also necessarilie foloweth , that except the word had taken the soule vnto it , likewise our soules should of necessitie be lost , bicause that onlie shal be saued which Christ restored in his own person , neither could Christ properlie haue suffered ( that I may let slippe many other most absurd points ) seeing that the soule properlie is troubled and afflicted . Others haue framed and deuised for true flesh , a ghost or fantasie , and to that purpose haue wrested and writhen the worde similitude or likenes , Roman. 8.3 . in these wordes of Paule , God sending his own son in the similitude of sinful flesh , &c: whom the old fathers called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . They had a double name , Docitae , or Docetae , and sprung indeede ( as some suppose ) from Simon Magus , who helde , that Christ came not in the flesh , but that hee was Christ . They held as the Marcionites did , that Christ suffered in a fantasie or ghost : See homil. 2. following . If these mens opinions were true , christ shold not be in verie deede Iesus , or a Sauiour , as indeed one that had not bin born or had suffered for vs . There are othersome , who forsaking these errors , do notwithstanding fall into others , no lesse absurde and detestable , bicause ( as the Poet saieth ) while fooles auoid some vices or faults , they ru● into others . Nestorius , whose heresie what it was is opened before . For Nestorius interpreted these wordes , the word became flesh after this manner , that is to saie , the godhead of the Sonne of God did most plentifullie and fullie powre foorth , the power and force therof into that flesh which it tooke . The absurditie of the former interpretation . Which interpretation if it be true , Christ is not God , but diuine , or as you woulde say , god-like or heauenlie , and though he be the most excellent amongest saints and holie ones , yet hee is not to be worshipped , neither to be accounted as a Sauiour .

Whereas notwithstanding Paule attributeth vnto Christ , Coloss. 2. ● . not the fulnesse of the diuinitie , but the fulnesse of the deitie or godhead , and to be both GOD and man ( which is a proper title to our sauiour Christ ) is far different from this , to be one that beareth or carrieth God . So that Nestorius maketh Christ God , not by the vnion of the very hypostasis or person of the word , but accounts him as most diuine , onely by the presence , comming , & force , or by the effusion or spreding abrode of gifts : and beside that , loosing , or destroying Christs person , he maketh him a mere or only man , he placeth also the person in his flesh a manhood : whereas on the other side , the fleshe taken is sustained and vpholden , in , and by , the godhead taking it . Eutyches heresie confuted .

Eutyches falling into the contrarie error thought that by these words , Three most grosse errors flowing from Eutyches his heresie . the word was made or became flesh , this was meant that the person or hypostasis of the word was changed into flesh , and for the vniting of the natures , he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead , that is to say , darknesse for light : in which matter he was most foulie deceiued , for beside that the Godhead is vnchangable , it would follow , if that were true which Eutyches affirmeth , that the word ceased to be God , so soone as it was made or became flesh , because that that which was changed ceased to be that which it was : as when Moses rod was changed into a serpent it ceased to be a rod , Exod. 4.2 . and began to be a serpent , Aristotle . euen as Aristotle teacheth , that by the depriuing or taking away of one forme , another is brought in . But if the abolishing or taking away be denied , that a mingling a mixture may be established , whether it be of the natures themselues , it is of the Godhead and the manhood , or of the properties of either nature , then will insue that , which is more absurd than the former , to wit , that Christ is neither God nor man , but a certeine third thing compacted of both , as the drinke called Mulsum , made of wine and honie sodden together , is neither wine nor honie alone , but a certaine matter compounded or made of them both : and what can be imagined more woonderfull and monstrous than these errors ? The right interpretation of some words profitable to confute sundrie errours . But all these errours , are both most shortlie and also most soundlie confuted , if the worde of assuming or taking , bee rightlie expounded : that is , by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture . Wherefore declare at the length will some saie , The personall vnion what it is . what is the hypostaticall or personall vnion in Christ ? It is the taking of mans nature , which is susteined or vpholden of the diuine nature , that is to say , such a taking or vniting , that there proceedeth or commeth out of that vniting , but one subsistence or being onelie , in which subsistence , that diuine nature , that is to saie , the person of the worde beareth swaie , or ruleth . I repeate this againe : The hypostaticall or personall vnion is that , from which reboundeth or proceedeth our hypostasies or person : for the more plaine manifesting and declaring whereof the fathers haue vsed the similitude of the bodie and the soule , Athanasius . Athanasius , who was a most constant defender and stout maintainer of this truth , being chiefly the author thereof . A similitude . Wherefore as a certaine soule , beeing ioyned to a certain bodie , maketh one certaine person , as Peter , Paule , Iohn . So that eternall worde of the Father , tooke vnto it that flesh of the virgine , that is to saye , made the same so proper vnto it selfe , that from hence commeth and proceedeth that person , whiche is called Christ . It appeareth plainelie vnto vs , out of the wordes of Christ in the tenth chapiter of the gospel according to Iohn , Iohn . 10.18 . that we must needes consider this mystery or sectet after this sort . Christ there saith , I haue power to lay downe my soule or life , and to take it againe . For necessary is it that Christ shoulde so speake , either secretlie in respect of his bodie , The place of Iohn 10. expounded : which cannot be vnderstood either of the or in respect of his soule , or else in respect of his bodie and soule together , or else distinctly and plainely in respect of his godhead . Christ coulde not so saye in respect of the bodie considered by it selfe , Bodie alone because the body is not said to laie downe a soule or to take it againe , because so excellent an action cannot be attributed to an instrument that which is rather subiect to the soule . or Soule alon● But is it in respect of the soule it self considered by it selfe ? No indeede : for then Christ shoulde rather haue saide : I haue power to lay downe my selfe a soule , and to take vp againe my selfe a soule . Verily in the resurrection , the soule is not taken vp againe , but the bodie : therefore these words cannot be ascribed to Christ , either in respect of his bodie onelie , or in respect of his soule onely : or of them both togither , What then is it in respect of them both together ? No , rather necessarie is it that wee referre it to some third thing , which may be saide to laie downe , and to take vp his soule . Wherefore Christ so spake according to his deitie : and when hee saieth , but of the godhead . that he hath power to laie downe his life , and to take it againe , he dooth againe open that mysterie or secret which wee handle . For the verie natures indeede so ioyned together , are in suche sorte sette out , that not two things , but one alone is established , and that without confusion , yet so that the one nature beareth rule . And it is meete to be marked that Christ saieth : I haue power to laie downe , not euery soule , but mine owne . Wherefore this cannot so be taken , nor referred to this end , that God should be the lord of all being things , but he sheweth , that that soule of his which he would lay down & take again , was otherwise his soule , than other mens soules are theirs . How then is it Christes soule will some men say ? Verily by personall vnion . The scripture saith that God dwelleth in vs , Iohn . 4.12 . and yet we beleeue and confes , that he dwelleth not in his saints , by his vnion or vniting : 1. Corinth. 6.19 . For our bodies are so the temples of the holy ghost , that yet they make not one subsistence or being with the holy ghost sith that the sanctified party is seuerally & by himselfe a certaine thing , & so likewise the holy ghost , to wit , god eternall . So a wicked spirit , and some one possessed with the same wicked spirit , are ioined togither , & yet the vncleane spirite is not in man , as the soule is in the bodie . For the wicked spirit remaineth by it self , a certain thing much like as the ghest is in his inne : and againe , the possessed with the wicked spirit , is so become the inne or lodging place of the wicked spirite , that yet the ghest is another from him . As for vs we affirme , the person of the word , or son of God so to dwell in that manhood that he hath taken vnto him , that hee hath vnited himselfe thereto by a personall vnion : so I say , that the nature taken or assumed , being sustained and vpheld in the nature taking or assuming , maketh yet notwithstanding but one person , which is the eternall worde of God . Hereupon it foloweth that there are not two sonnes of God , much lesse two Christs , one , the son of Marie , the other , the son of God , Matth. 1.21.23 but one Immanuel and sauior onelie . And this is the very true description of the personall vnion , as wil yet much more plainelie appeare , if we compare with this truth touching the personal vnion : Sundrie sorts of errors . the descriptions that are partlie felt from the olde heresies , and partlie anew deuised by the fresh furbushing of the aforesaid heresies . First , there are some that feare not openly to say , that the habitation or dwelling of God in Christ , is not otherwise to be considered in Christ , or that he doth no otherwise dwell in him , than in other men , yea than in other creatures . Iacobus Andreas assertion , and the same confuted . Iacobus Andreas in those his Thesis or propositions , by which he blowed to the field , or bade the battel , wrote the same euen in so many words , as you would saie , to wit , that the habitation or dwelling of the son of God in Christ is not otherwise to be considered than in all other creaturs whatsoeuer , as in respect of his essentiall habitation or dwelling , for God is euerie where . If a man demaund what shall be the difference of the personall vnion : this shall be their answeare , that it consisteth herein , that into all other things the godhead hath powred forth some properties or qualities , but into Christes humanity or manhoode hee hath powred all properties . A wonderfull thing , that after that these opinions haue nowe a long while since bin tossed , and by the solemne and most iust iudgements of Christes church , condemned and confounded by so many darts , as haue come from heauen it selfe , against the authors and fautors of these vngodlie blasphemies , a maruellous thing , I say , that there should now spring vp some , as dare be bolde , both by worde and writing , to maintaine and defend the same , and that with so great reioicing and commendation of most vnskilfull men : for who is he vnles hee be altogither blinde , that seeth not , that if the word be no other wise present in christ , than in many things , ( that is to say , beingly , presently , powerfully as in schools they were woont to say ) that then Christs person is destroied , His heresie is declared before . as Nestorius taught ? And that if wee grant an effusion or powring forth of all the proprieties of the godhead into the flesh assumed or taken , that then the other part of the vngodlie assertion of Eutyches , Concerning him and his heresie , see before . shall be erceted and set vp ? A wonderful wound indeed flowing from such diuers matters , to wit , the seperating of the naturs on the one side , & the effusion or powring forth of the properties of the one nature into the other , on the other side , & first in our memory & time most impudently fried , and most vnskilfully by our vbiquitaries defended .