Two very learned sermons of M. Beza, together with a short sum of the…Two very lerned sermons of M. Beza, togither with a short sum of the…

Eutyches falling into the contrary ⟨p. 16⟩error thought that by these words,¹ 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 uniting of the natures, he substituted or established the abolishing of the Godhead, that is to say, darkness for light: in which §1matter he was most folly deceived, for beside that the Godhead is unchangeable, it would follow, if that were true which §2Eutyches affirmeth, that the word ceased to be God, so soon 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,² and began to be a serpent,³ even as Aristotle teacheth, that by the depriving or taking away of one form, another is brought in. But if §3the abolishing or taking away be denied, that a mingling a mixture may be established, whether it be of the natures themselves, it is of the Godhead and the manhood, or of the properties of either nature, then will ensue that, which is more absurd than the former, to wit, that Christ is neither God nor man, but a certain third thing compacted of both, as the ⟨p. 17⟩drink called Mulsum, made of wine and honey sodden together, is neither wine nor honey alone, but a certain matter compounded or made of them both: and what can be imagined more wonderful and monstrous than these errors?⁴ But all these errors, are both most shortly and also most soundly confuted, if the word of assuming or taking, be rightly expounded: that is, by the comparing or conferring of other places of the Scripture. Wherefore declare at the length will some say,