Since the debate on the Lord’s
Supper brings Christ’s presence under scrutiny, the discussion consequently
leads to a debate over the person of Christ. . . . a few points as they related
to the use of the fathers will be highlighted. In both Andreae’s Acts and
Beza’s Responsio, there are extended references to early christological
heresies, particularly to the doctrine of Nestorius. Beza and Andreae accuse
each other of repeating Nestorius’ error, and each interprets the Council of
Chalcedon as a historical basis for his own Christology. Beza claims that
Nestorius would not have made the mistake he did, had he been able to discern
the difference between abstract and concrete terms (Raitt, Colloquy of
Montbéliard, 125). Beza explains that Nestorius, a man both subtle and
gifted from natural eloquence, neither took away the reality of the Son of God
with Paul of Samosata, or the distinction of persons with Sabellius and Photinus,
not denied the truth of human nature. On the contrary, Nestorius was not ignorant
the two natures in Christ but was misrepresented, as John of Damascus testifies
(Beza, Responsio, 94). According to Beza, it was Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius’
bitter adversary, who argued (at the Council of Ephesus) against the assertion
that two natures also established two persons. From Epistle 2 of Nestorius
to Cyril, Beza cites that Nestorius indeed believed in two natures, but that he
did not confess the hypostatic union, only conjunction (Beza, Responsio,
94). Beza tries to show that Andreae does not even correctly understand the
early church figures of the christological controversy in order to show that
Andreae’s use of the fathers is based on a misunderstanding of them. Again the
errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, Beza teaches that, just as there are two
natures, so there are two essential properties, two wills, and two operations
tending to one common and final effect that is attributed to one single person,
because Jesus Christ is but one being subsisting in two natures. Beza writes
that, whether Nestorius thought that the word was truly made flesh or that it
constituted just as many persons as are in Christ’s nature, neither is enough to
excuse Andreae’s claim that the word does not separate from the flesh of
Christ. Beza sees this point as a theological stumbling block, since misunderstanding
the two distinct natures of Christ leads people astray from orthodox views. He
praises Cyril for opening people’s eyes to Christ, who “is not God-bearer but
God-man” (Beza, Responsio, 95).
Reminiscent of Calvin’s previous
writings against Westphal and Hesshusen, Beza wants to make sure that Cyril is
depicted as a supporter of the Reformed view. According to Beza, he himself has
already cited Andreae’s additional explanation from Cyril and other places of
Andreae’s writings for many years (Beza, Responsio, 177). Beza reiterates
his belief in the real substance of Christ’s humanity, and upholds it in the administration
of the sacrament, especially in the Lord’s Supper. He then asserts that these
are “not our words but [the words] of all the orthodox antiquity,” and cites
the sayings of Augustine, Cyril, Vigilius, and Fulgentius in support of his
claim (Beza, Responsio, 181). (Esther Chung-Kim, Inventing Authority:
The use of the Church Fathers in Reformation Debates over the Eucharist [Waco,
Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2011], 137-38)
Beza is basically arguing that,
just as there must be no separation against Nestorius, there must be also a distinction
against the error of Eutyches and the followers of Brenz. Beza summarizes that
the common effect of the diversity of the two natures—especially in the work of
human redemption—is done so that the humanity is not a mediator of salvation without
the divinity, nor does the divinity redeem without the humanity (Beza, Responsio,
128). (Ibid., 178 n. 89)
