An. Then take thou the case to stand thus.1 Either of christs natures, y• is to say his godhead & his manhood, keep still their essential properties to themselves, with out communicating them the one to the other, according as I have said already which thing unless we grant: infinite and utterly wicked absurdities will insew. For if his godhead should receive into it self y• properties of his manhood, it should be transformed into manhood: & contrariwise, if his manhood should admit into it self y• properties of his godhead, it should become a certain counterfeit godhead, so as christ might be said to be neither very god nor very man, & so consequently he should not be our saviour, And therefore there is not any intercommuning either of natures or of essential properties. For look how false and wicked are these propositions, flesh is the godhead, and the godhead is flesh: even so false and wicked are these also, Christs flesh is every where or Christ is every where as touching his flesh: & christs godhead is not every wher• or christ is not every where as touching his godhead: most false of all them are these. The godhead was crucified or died: & christs ⟨p. 11⟩flesh is infinite. Now although these two natures, together with their essential properties, cannot communicate each with other as I said afore: yet are they united in such sort, as they make but one selfsame party, or one person only. Therefore look how false are these said speeches, the godhead is flesh, and flesh is the godhead▪ so true & catholic are these, god (that is to wit the word) is a man, & a man is god. And that is by reason of the unity of y• persons which springeth, not of the communicating of natures (for as I told you, there is no such thing, unless ye take communicating for union, which were to unproper) but of the uniting of natures. For god is not a man in that he is god, (which thing must notwithstanding needs follow, if the natures of the very essences that is to say of the godhead and of the manhood communicated each with other, that is to wit, were the one as well as y• other) but in another respect that is to wit, in y• he hath united a man unto him. Neither is a man god, in y• he is a man: but in another respect, namely in that he is united unto god.
An. Then take yu the case to stand thus.1 Either of christs natures, y• is to say his godhead & his manhod, keepe still theire essential properties to themselues, with out communicating them the one to the other, accordinge as I haue saide already which thing vnlesse we graunt: infinite and vtterly wicked absurdities will insew. For if his godhead shuld receiue into it selfe y• properties of his manhod, it shuld be trāsformed into māhod: & cōtrariwise, if his manhod shuld admit into it selfe y• properties of his godhead, it shuld become a certaine counterfet godhead, so as christ might be said to be neither verie god nor very man, & so consequently he shuld not be our sauior, And therefore there is not any intercommuning either of natures or of essentiall properties. For loke how false and wicked are these propositions, flesh is the godhead, and the godhead is flesh: euen so false and wicked are these also, Christs flesh is euery where or Christ is euery where as touching his flesh: & christs godhead is not euery wher• or christ is not eueri wher as touching his godhead: most false of al thē are these. The godhead was crucifyed or died: & christs ⟨p. 11⟩flesh is infinite. Now although these two natures, together with theire essentiall properties, cannot communicate eche wyth other as I sayde afore: yet are they vnited in such sort, as they make but one selfesame partie, or one person onely. Therefore loke how false are these saide speches, the godhead is flesh, and flesh is the godhead▪ so true & catholyke are these, god (that is to wit the word) is a man, & a man is god. And that is by reason of the vnitie of y• persons which springeth, not of the comunicating of natures (for as I told you, there is no suche thinge, vnlesse ye take cōmunicating for vnion, whyche were to vnproper) but of the vniting of natures. For god is not a man in that he is god, (which thing must notwithstanding nedes folowe, if the natures of the very essences that is to say of the godhed and of the manhod communicated eche with other, that is to wit, were the one as wel as y• other) but in another respect that is to wit, in y• he hath vnited a man vnto him. Neither is a man god, in y• he is a man: but in another respect, namely in that he is vnited vnto god.
- 1Howe each of christs natures communicate their properties unto other.Hovve eche of christes natures cō municate their properties vnto other.
