According to this doctrine,1 Cyrillus writing upon S. John saith, He that eateth the flesh of Christ, hath life everlasting. For this flesh hath the word of God, which naturally is life. Therefore he saith: I will raise him again in the last day. For I, said he, that is, my Body, which shall be eaten, will raise him again. For he is not other, then his flesh. I say not this because by nature he is not other, but because after incarnation, he suffereth not him self to be divided into two sons. By which words he reproveth the heresy of wicked Nestorius, that went about to divide Christ, and of Christ to make two sons, the one the son of God, the other the son of Mary, and so two persons. For which Nestorius was condemned in the First Ephesine Council, and also specially for that he said, (167)2 we receive in this Sacrament only the flesh of Christ in the Bread, and his Blood only in the Wine, without the Godhead, because Christ said, he that eateth my flesh, and said not,3 he that eateth or drinketh my Godhead, because his Godhead cannot be eaten, but his flesh only. Which heretical cavil Cyrillus doth thus avoid. Although (saith he) the nature of the Godhead be not eaten, yet we eat the Body of Christ, which verily may be eaten. But this Body is the words own proper Body,4 which quickeneth all things, and in as much as it is the Body of life, it is quickening, or lifegevinge. Now he quickeneth us, or giveth us life, as God, the only fountain of life. Wherefore such speeches uttered in the scriptures of Christ, whereby that appeareth to be attributed to the one nature, which appertaineth to the other, and contrariwise: according to that incomprehensible, and unspeakable conjunction and union of the divine and human nature in one person, are to be taken of him inseparably, in as much as he is both God and Man: and not of this, or that other nature only, as being severed from the other. For through cause of this inseparable union, what so ever is appertaining, or peculiar to either nature, it is rightly ascribed, yea and it ought to be ascribed to the whole person. And this done, as the learned divines term it, Per communicationem idiomatum. And thus Cyrillus teacheth, how Christ may be eaten, not according to the divine, but human nature, which he took of us:
Accordinge to this doctrine,1 Cyrillus writinge vpon S. Iohn saith, He that eateth the fleashe of Christe, hath life euerlastinge. For this fleashe hath the woorde of God, whiche naturally is life. Therefore he saith: I wil raise him againe in the last daie. For I, saide he, that is, my Bodie, whiche shalbe eaten, wil raise him againe. For he is not other, then his fleashe. I saie not this because by nature he is not other, but because after incarnation, he suffereth not him self to be diuided into two sonnes. By whiche woordes he reproueth the heresie of wicked Nestorius, that went about to diuide Christe, and of Christe to make two sonnes, the one the sonne of God, the other the sonne of Marie, and so two persones. For which Nestorius was condemned in the First Ephesine Councel, and also specially for that he said, (167)2 we receiue in this Sacrament onely the fleashe of Christ in the Breade, and his Bloude onely in the VVine, without the Godheade, because Christe saide, he that eateth my fleashe, and saide not,3 he that eateth or drinketh my Godhead, because his Godhead cannot be eaten, but his fleashe onely. VVhiche heretical cauil Cyrillus dooth thus auoide. Although (saith he) the nature of the Godhead be not eaten, yet we eate the Bodie of Christe, whiche verily maie be eaten. But this Bodie is the woordes owne proper Bodie,4 whiche quickneth al thinges, and in as muche as it is the Bodie of life, it is quickninge, or lifegeuinge. Nowe he quickneth vs, or geueth vs life, as God, the onely fonteine of life. VVherefore suche speaches vttered in the scriptures of Christe, whereby that appeareth to be attributed to the one nature, whiche apperteineth to the other, and contrariewise: accordinge to that incomprehensible, and vnspeakeable coniunction and vnion of the diuine and humaine na•ure in one persone, are to be taken of him inseparably, in as muche as he is both God and Man: and not of this, or that other nature onely, as beinge seuered from the other. For through cause of this inseparable vnion, what so euer is apperteininge, or peculiar to either nature, it is rightly ascribed, yea and it ought to be ascribed to the whole persone. And this done, as the learned diuines terme it, Per communicationem idiomatum. And thus Cyrillus teacheth, howe Christe maie be eaten, not accordinge to the diuine, but humaine nature, whiche he tooke of vs:
- 1In Johan. li. 4. Ca. 15.In Iohan. li. 4. Ca. 15.
- 2The .167. Untruth For neither was there any such error defended by Nestorius, nor any such Canon ever moved in that Councel.The .167. Vntrueth For neither vvas there any such errour defēded by Nestorius, nor any suche Canon euer mooued in that Councel.
- 3Vide Ana•hematif. 11.
- 4Item ad Theodosi▪ de recta fide & li. 2. ad Reginas de recta •ide.
