The Sum of Christian Religion, Animadversions · Positions

The Sum of Christian Religion · Animadversions · Positions

p. 771The Poſitions of Hunnius concerning the union.

I.

Jeſus Chriſt, in the true knowledge of whom conſiſteth our eternall ſalvation, is God and man; that is, a perſon ſubſiſting of two natures; to wit, the divine and the humane.

The Animadverſion.

How the perſon of Chriſt is made up of two natures.Thus ſpeake ſome of the Fathers, and almoſt all the Schoole-men, that the perſon of Chriſt doth conſiſt, is made up, is conſtituted, is compounded, is made of two natures, the divine and humane; or of three ſubſtances, the deity, the ſoule, and the body: but ſo they explaine this, that they neither make any confuſion of natures, nor any imperfection of the perſon of the Word, before the Incarnation; nor yet a quaternity of the perſons in the divinity; for they teach, that diverſe wayes one thing may be made up of two or three things: One way is, when of two or more things remaining entire and perfect, one thing is made up; as in thoſe,A thing is ſaid diverſly to be made up of more things. the forme whereof is compoſition, order, or figure: ſo a heape of wheat is made up of many graines, and a City of many Citizens. Another way is, when one thing is made up of others which remaine not in their perfection, but are changed; as when a mixed body is made up of the elements; Metheglen is made of water, and honey. The third way is, when ſome third thing different ſpecifically is made up of two imperfect things without mixture, as of matter and forme; as man is compoſed of the reaſonable ſoule and the body. None of theſe wayes is the perſon of Chriſt ſaid to conſiſt of two natures, or properly compoſed of them: for, the hypoſtaticall union, is not the confuſion of the natures, or onelyonly an ordered diſpoſition betweene themſelves, as was that Neſtorian paraſtaſis, rather then hypoſtaſis: foreign. See Caſsian l. 1. de Incar.neither is it a permixtion (for ſome of the Ancients improperly called it a mixtion:) neither is it a compoſition of matter and forme into one third thing which is neither of them: for the Word is not the forme of the fleſh, nor is this the matter of the Word; neither againe, was the Word, by aſſuming the fleſh, made a perſon, or an other perſon, which the 8. and 12. Theſis confeſſe. The fourth way is, when improperly, and at large, a thing is ſaid to conſiſt of many, in which many things are put together; and ſo at length they ſay in this ſenſe, that the perſon of Chriſt conſiſteth, or is compounded of two natures, whereas a compoſition, in a large ſenſe, is the poſition of many things together; for, ſo they call the hypoſtaticall union a compoſition. Wherefore, to avoid errour, they ſpeake more warily, and they ſay, that the perſon of Chriſt ſubſiſteth in two natures: which phraſe the Orthodox Writers retaine, as being more proper; although we thinke it not fit to contend about words with any, who have a right opinion of the matter it ſelfe.

II.

The divine nature, and ſo this word [God] is not here taken abſolutely (for ſo the whole p. 772Trinity ſhould be incarnate) but relatively is underſtood the ſecond perſon, the onelyonly begotten Son; who, in the boſome of the Father, and with the Father, is one and the ſame, John 1. and 10. The Image of the inviſible God. Col. 1. The brightneſſe of the Fathers glory, and the character of his ſubſtance, Heb. 1. God the Word, John 1. The mighty God, Iſaiah 9. God bleſſed for ever, Rom. 9.

The Animadverſion.

Damaſcen, and the Ancients write, that the divine nature aſſumed the fleſh in one of the perſons, or in the perſon of the Word. It is rightly ſaid then, that the divine nature in Chriſt is not to be underſtood abſolutely, as a nature; but relatively, as a perſon: Therefore Thomas, and the Schoole-men, uſe rather to ſay, that the perſon of the Word aſſumed the nature, then that the nature aſſumed the nature; or, the nature aſſumed the nature mediately, the perſon immediately aſſumed the nature; becauſe, as they ſpeake, the union is immediatly terminated in the perſon, mediatly in the divine nature.

III.

The humanity in Chriſt is not a perſon ſubſiſting in it ſelfe, but a nature having no proper perſonality; but, by reaſon of the union, fully capable and participant of the perſon of the Word.

The Animadverſion.

It is rightly ſaid, that the humanity wants a proper perſonality: for, a perſonality is a ſubſiſtence, or the power of ſubſiſting by it ſelfe without any other, and without any other ſuppoſitum or ſupporting ſubject of a rationall nature, which power the humanity neither had,Whether, and how the fleſh is capable of the perſon. nor hath; but, it is a new, improper and deceitfull ſaying, that by force of the union, the fleſh is made fully capable and partaker of the perſon of the Word. It is firſt new, becauſe, neither the Scripture, nor the Church ſpeaketh thus, that the fleſh is capable of the perſon. 2. Improper, becauſe the fleſh neither containes, nor incloſeth the perſon of the Word, as the place is ſaid to be capable of the thing placed:He begins to ſpeake thus Theſ. 44. neither becomes it the perſon it ſelfe, or is it informed by the perſonality, as the ſubject is capable of the forme. 3. Deceitfull, becauſe the Sophiſter uſeth this phraſe, as a preparative for the reall communication of the properties in the natures; to wit, that he may ſay, that the fleſh is after the ſame manner capable and partaker of the deity and omnipreſence, as it is (according to his ſaying) partaker and capable of the perſonality; and that therefore, not by its owne, but by the deity and immenſity of the Word, it is God and omnipreſent, even as not by its owne, but by the perſonality of the Word it ſubſiſteth. But orthodox men confeſſe, with Damaſcen, that the perſon of the Word, by reaſon of the union, is common to both natures; that now the humanity ſubſiſteth in Chriſt by the ſame perſonality that the divinity doth: but, they deny that the fleſh is made ſo capable and partaker of the perſon, as if it were the perſon it ſelfe: as they alſo deny, that it is made ſo partaker of the deity and omnipreſence, as if it were the deity of God himſelfe, the omnipreſence, or omnipreſent, &c. neither doe they grant, that it is otherwiſe partaker of the perſon, of the deity, of the omnipreſence, or can be, then by the union, which maketh not that the humanity, but that man is the perſon is God, is omnipreſent; in which ſenſe the Apoſtle ſaith, That the Son of God was made partaker of the fleſh and bloud of the children; to wit,Heb. 2.Heb 2 by aſſuming the ſeed of Abraham into his perſonality, or by the hypoſtaticall union; whereby, not the deity of the Son, but God the Son is made fleſh and blood; that is to ſay, true man. In this ſenſe alſo it may be rightly ſaid, that the fleſh, or humanity of Chriſt, is partaker of the perſon of the deity, of omnipreſence; to wit, by the union with the divine perſon, and omnipreſent; which union, makes not that the humanity of Chriſt, but that the man Chriſt is a perſon, is God, is omnipreſent.

IV.

This in the Scripture is called fleſh: by which word not the onelyonly corporeall maſſe is underſtood, but the full and entire humanity, conſiſting of a true body, and a reaſonable ſoule.

p. 773V.

For the Son of God is made partaker of fleſh and bloud, as we are, to wit, in all things made like to his brethren, except ſin.

The Animadverſion.

He ſaith well, That under the terme of fleſh, is meant the entire humanity, conſiſting of a true body and ſoule, ſo he would adde theſe words, With the true properties of both, and withall the infirmities, except ſin: For, if he be like his brethren in all things, then ſurely in locality and circumſcription hee is made like to them, and that in the union, and in the Word. For, without the union, and without the Word, the fleſh hath neither being nor ſubſiſtence at any time: Therefore that is falſe, which he affirmes in the 36. Theſis, That the fleſh, by power of the union, hath, in a moſt eminent way, tranſcended all locality, in the illocall Word, and that it hath obtained an illocall manner of exiſtence.

VI.

Therefore the Word did not aſſume an imaginary, but a true and ſolid body, conſiſting of fleſh and bones, Luke 24. of fleſh and bloud, John 16. which alſo in glory remaines a true body, conformable to the glorified bodies of the Saints, both in ſubſtance and qualities.

The Animadverſion.

This Theſis alone doth ſtrongly refute theſe enſuing ſubterfuges:

1. For, if the Word aſſumed not a fantaſticall, but a true and ſolid body; then, doubtleſſe, it aſſumed a body endued with quantitie, dimenſion, viſibilitie, and localitie: For, that is not a true body, but an imaginary, that wants quantitie; nor can that be ſolid, which wants dimenſions; and that hath no dimenſions,foreign. which is indiviſible & illocall; for, an uncircumſcribed nature is inviſible, ſaith Theodoret. Now, ſuch a body as the Word did aſſume, ſuch a body aſſumed is in the Word: Therefore it is falſe, That the body of Chriſt in the Word, which is illocall, did obtaine an illocall way of ſubſiſting; that is, that it is made, and becomes illocall.

2. If the body, aſſumed by the Word, conſiſteth of fleſh and bones, Luke 24. of fleſh and bloud, Hebr. 2. certainly, that body which is feigned to lurk in a cruſt of bread, or under the accidents of bread, and to be eaten by the mouth, is not that true and ſolid body aſſumed by the Word; becauſe it hath not fleſh and bones.

3. If alſo it remaines in glory ſuch a bodie, to wit, ſolid and true, conſiſting of fleſh and bones, having dimenſions; then, doubtleſſe, in glory it retaines the definition of a true bodie: from which definition, the three dimenſions, and, by reaſon of theſe, circumſcription and locality can be no more ſeparated, then rationality from man.

4. If it be conformable to the glorified bodies of the Saints in ſubſtance and qualities, it cannot then be illocall, immenſe, every-where: for, our bodies ſhall not be illocall, nor every-where; but ſhall have their Ʋbs, by Chriſts owne teſtimony. John 17.24. Father, I will, that they whom thou haſt given to me, may be with me where I am, John 14.2, 3. I goe to prepare a place for you; and if I goe and prepare a place for you, I will come againe, and receive you unto my ſelfe, that where I am, there you may be.

They need not then cavill thus, That the body is ſuch in its owne ſubſtance; but in the Word, by reaſon of the union, it is not ſuch: for, whereas it hath its being not in it ſelfe, but in the Word, which aſſumeth it, and alwaies had; doubtleſſe it is, and remaineth ſuch in the Word, and in the union, as it was aſſumed. Nor can there be any true reaſon of that union, which deſtroyeth the reaſon of the ſubſtance of fleſh: but that reaſon of the union which he feignes, by a certaine contradiction, deſtroyeth the reaſon of the ſubſtance; becauſe it makes that which is locall, to be illocall; that which hath dimenſions, to have no dimenſions; that which hath quantity, to have no quantity; a body, to be no body; and, a ſubſtance, no ſubſtance.

VII.

But he alſo aſſumed a ſoule: for he ſaid, My ſoule is heavie unto the death, Mat. 26. which alſo he breathed out on the Croſſe, Mat. 27. to wit, an intelligent ſoule, which after p. 774death ſhould remaine, and which might grow in wiſdome, in the time of his humiliation, Luke 2.

The Animadverſion.

This Theſis is right oppoſed, 1. To the errour of Apollinaris, feigning, that the Word aſſumed fleſh without a ſoule, and that hee himſelfe was in ſtead of a ſoule. See Ambroſe de Incay. l. 1. c. 7.

2. To that Papiſticall fiction of ſuch a perfection in Chriſts ſoule, as from its creation, was ſo repleniſhed with knowledge and grace, that it could not learne any knowledge (or grow therein) which it knew not before. See Bellarm de Chriſto, l. 4. c. 1, 2, 3, 4.

3. To the folly of Ubiquitaries, and of this teacher, concerning the ubiquitie and omniſcience of Chriſts humanity, even from the moment of his conception and union: for, if Chriſt did truly breathe out his ſoule upon the Croſſe, there muſt needs be a truly locall ſeparation of the ſoule and body in death; therefore by no meanes could the ſoule or body then be every-where: Or, if then the ſoule or the body was in any wiſe every-where; and, if in any ſort there was not made a true ſeparation of both, neither did Chriſt in ſome ſort truly breathe out his ſoul; that i…, he did not truly dye, which is falſe, notwithſtanding then, that is, in that ſeparation of the body and ſoule, the humanity was not ſeparated from the Word, but inſeparably the union of the natures remained in death: For, Chriſt then was not truly man, although hee died, according to his body; but living, according to his ſoule: therefore it followes irrefragably,

1. That by affirming the ubiquity of Chriſts body, or ſoule, or of both, we muſt deny that Chriſt truly died. 2. That ubiquity neither is the forme of the hypoſtaticall union, nor the ſpecificall difference of it, which Smidlinus, in the conference at Maulbrun,Pag. 14. Lat. p. 9. Germ. affirmed, and laboured for. Nor is it the effect or conſequence thereof, which afterward Chemnitius deviſed, to correct Smidlinus his opinion: For, the union remained not onelyonly in death, but alſo in the whole ſtate of his humilitie, without any reall transfuſion of the ubiquity, or any other of the divine properties into the fleſh; without which the Ubiquitaries cry out, that Chriſt is no more God, then Peter was.

Out of all which, it is plaine, that ubiquity, by this Theſis, cuts its owne throat: For, how can a dead body, hanging on the Croſſe, and lying in the grave, and yet not ſeparated from the Word, have an illocall-manner of ſubſiſting? Likewiſe, if the ſoule, which the Word aſſumed, could in the time of humiliation encreaſe in wiſdome, as Luke 2. then doubtleſſe, from the womb it could not be omniſcient, although it ſubſiſted in the Word.

VIII.

This humane nature of Chriſt is not required to the dignity of the perſon of the Word, as it is ſimply the Word: foreign.For, the Word is a perſon of it ſelfe perfect, and every way complete, even from his eternall generation of the Father.

IX.

It belongs notwithſtanding to the integrity of the Word incarnate, or of Christ, as be is Chriſt;foreign. whoſe perſon, after the Incarnation, is compounded, as the Eccleſiaſtick Writers doe witneſſe.

The Animadverſion.

If the fleſh belong to the integrity of the perſon of the Word incarnate.In the ninth Poſition there lies ſome deceit: for he ſaith, that the fleſh belongs to the integrity of the Word incarnate, that afterward hee may conclude the ubiquitie of the fleſh; when as the entire Word, being incarnate, is every-where. But he cunningly ſaith, that it belongs to the integrity of the Word incarnate, but not to the integritie of the perſon of the Word incarnate; leſt hee ſhould ſeem to conclude a quaternitie, or make the Word one perſon, and the Word incarnate another. To the ſame purpoſe is it, when he calls the perſon of the Word incarnate, or of Chriſt, foreign, compounded. Now, the orthodox Writers, though they reject not ſimply theſe ſpeeches (for they themſelves ſpeak ſo, without any feare of cavilling) yet p. 775they warne us to underſtand them aright, to wit, in that ſenſe as they were uſed by Eccleſiaſtick Writers; to whoſe teſtimony our adverſaries appeale, leſt wee ſhould conclude, that the hypoſtaſis of the Word, before its Incarnation, was imperfect; or, that it is from ſome other hypoſtaſis of the Word incarnate: For ſo, of neceſſity, a quaternity muſt follow. We muſt then ſtick to that which our adverſary confeſſeth rightly, Theſ. 8. that the Word is in it ſelfe altogether perfect and entire. We muſt alſo hold what he acknowledgeth, Theſ. 12. that there is not one Son begot of the Father from eternity, and another conceived and begot of Mary in time; but that there is one and the ſame: For, theſe being granted, it is plaine, that the Word, and the Word incarnate are not two different perſons, but one and the ſame numericall hypostaſis; and that they differ not eſſentially, but onelyonly in ſome reſpect: as Peter, when he is clothed, and when he is naked, is one and the ſame perſon, differing from it ſelfe not ſubjectively, but accidentally.

Hence further it followes manifeſtly, that nothing can be properly ſaid to belong to the integrity of the Word incarnate, which doth not alſo belong to the integrity of the perſon of the Word; but to ſay this, were to deny the perfection of the Word, and to make a compoſition in God.

The Word incarnate is improperly a perſon created.That the fleſh then doth belong to the integrity of the perſon of the Word, is to be ſo underſtood, as the perſon is called compounded by Writers, to wit, not properly, but improperly: For, on the firſt Theſis we ſhewed, That the perſon of the Word incarnate is compounded, made up, conſtituted, conſiſteth of two natures; not as an heap of corne is made up of many graines, a mixed body of elements: Or, as a living creature, is compounded of a body and ſoule, which are peculiar waies of compoſition. Neither can they be attributed to the perſon of Chriſt, unleſſe many abſurdities doe follow hence, as Thomas ſhewes at length. But the terme Compoſition is here taken in a large ſignification,How the hypoſtaticall union is a compoſition. for the poſition of divers things together in one, which way ſoever it be; for, ſo the hypoſtaticall union may be called a compoſition: to wit, that by it the perſon of the Son of God, before ſubſiſting of one nature, now ſubſiſteth of two, remaining in the interim perfect and ſimple in it ſelfe: But not as if the perſon of the Word incarnate were made up of two natures, or of a perſon and a nature, neither of which that perſon is; as man is made up of a reaſonable ſoule and body, but neither of theſe is man. After the ſame manner the fleſh may be ſaid to belong to the integrity of the perſon of the Word incarnate, not as a part integrating and completing an incomplete perſon; but, as a nature aſſumed into the hypoſtaſis of the Word, in which the ſame Word inhabiteth whole and entire corporally, as it were in his Temple, and exhibits himſelfe, as it were clothed with a garment or vaile, to be ſeen and felt, he being in himſelfe inviſible and unpalpable: For ſo we ſee the Scripture ſpeaks of that inhabitation of the Word in the fleſh aſſumed, John 2.21. Phil. 2.8. Hebr. 10.20. and ſo doe the Orthodox Fathers: among the reſt, Auſtin; Lib. 1. c. 21. de Trin.The Word (ſaith hee) was made fleſh, that is, man; yet not converted, nor changed into that which was made: but clothed with fleſh, that he might be ſeen of fleſhly men, in a fleſhly manner. Neither doth our Adverſary ſpeak otherwiſe, when he ſaith, Theſ. 18. that the whole Word was clothed and covered with fleſh.

The Word clothed with fleſh not accidentally, but perſonally.But let us not imagine, that the fleſh accidentally only, and by way of an externall habit, is ſuper-added and joyned to the Word, as a garment extrinſecally adheres to a man; or accidentally and changeably; which, as Lombard witneſſeth, was the opinion of ſome: for the fleſh is ſo aſſumed into the moſt intimate and inward hypoſtaſis of the Word, that the union thereof with the Word is truly hypoſtaticall; that is, it hath the ſame ſubſiſtence with the Word.

Theſe things being obſerved, there will be no danger of fallacies; for it will be eaſie, out of the diſtinction and true explication of the phraſe, to deſtroy whatſoever the Adverſary can hereafter alledge from thence, for the omnipreſence of the fleſh: For, the entire and whole perſon of the Word incarnate is God, and immenſe, and omnipreſent; eternall alſo, and begotten of the Father, and illocall, &c. Although the fleſh aſſumed into that perſon be not, or is not made God, nor immenſe, p. 776nor omnipreſent, and much leſſe eternall, begot of the Father, illocall, &c. For it will not follow, ſaith Auſtin, that whatſoever is in God, muſt be every-where as God.

X.

The perſon then of our Saviour conſiſteth not of one nature onelyonly, but of two coupled together immutably, and without confuſion; ſo likewiſe indiviſibly, and without ſeparation: and ſo they meet together in one hypoſtaſis, according to the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon.

The Animadverſion.

The perſon of our Saviour conſiſteth of two natures, not by the compoſition of one third of integrall parts, or eſſentiall either, as of matter and forme, as this Doctor doth tacitely imply; but onelyonly by that way which was declared in the firſt and ninth Theſis: foreign, &c.for otherwiſe, there would be a quaternity. The words of the Canon of the Councell of Chalcedon ſound thus, The Son of God was manifeſted in two natures, without confuſion, without converſion, without diviſion, without ſeparation; the difference of the natures, being no waies aboliſhed by the union, but rather the propriety of each nature, meeting in one perſon or hypoſtaſis, is preſerved. That fiction then of our Adverſary, which followeth in the 36. Theſis, is repugnant to this Canon; to wit, That the humanity, in reſpect of the union, hath moſt eminently tranſcended all localitie in the illocall Word, and hath obtained an illocall way of ſubſiſting: For ſo, the properties of both natures ſhould not be preſerved, but confuſed; for, the fleſh ſhould loſe its localitie in the illocall Word: and, conſequently, its circumſcription, dimenſions, quantity and ſubſtance: Neither can it be in any caſe both locall and illocall; for it is impoſſible, that one and the ſame nature can be ſuſceptible of contrary properties or affections together,Theod. dial. 2. Damaſc. l. 3. c. 3. & l. 4. c. 19. as, with Theodoret, Damaſcen teacheth every-where.

XI.

Hence there is but one Lord Jeſus Chriſt, 1 Cor. 8. and in the two natures and nativities, which are more then generically different, there is but one onelyonly Son, in his eternall generation without a mother, in his temporall nativity without a Father, Hebr. 7.

XII.

Neither did the Father from eternity beget one Son, and Mary his mother another, by a temporall birth and conception; but that onelyonly one Son of God and man.

The Animadverſion.

As the Father begot not one Son from eternity, and Mary another in time, but the very ſame; ſo there is not a different, but the perſon of the Word, before and after the Incarnation, is the ſame in eſſence and number: For, the ſecond perſon of the Trinitie, was neither changed by the Incarnation, nor was it multiplied or perfected; therefore the younger Divines were well warned to take heed, and rightly to underſtand the Adverſaries phraſe,Theſ. 9. when he ſaith, that the fleſh belongs to the integrity of the Word incarnate; and that the perſon of the Word incarnate was compoſed: For, it is very improper to ſay, That the perſon of the Word, is a part of the perſon of the Word incarnate; becauſe the perſon is not made a part of the perſon, either of its owne, or of anothers: For, if of its owne, then the whole ſhould be a part of it ſelfe; if of anothers, there would not be the ſame Son, begot of his Father, and borne of his mother: and neceſſarily there will follow a multiplication and quaternity of the perſons; therefore Auſtin ſaith well, Chriſt is one perſon of a double ſubſtance (ſaith he,Lib. 3. c. 10. cont. Max.) becauſe he is God and man; and yet, neither God nor man can be called a part of this perſon: otherwiſe God, the Son of God, before hee took the forme of a ſervant, was not whole; and he encreaſed, when man was added to his divinity.

XIII.

As Gabriel ſaid, What ſhall be borne of thee, ſhall be called holy▪ and the Son of God. Hence Eliſabeth, being full of the holy Ghoſt, calls her the mother of her Lord.

XIV.

By reaſon of this identity of the perſon or hypoſtaſis, the Word was ſaid to be made fleſh, John 1. The branch of David, Jehovah, Jerem. 23. The Son of man, Son of the living God, Matth. 16. The ſecond man, the Lord from heaven, 1 Cor. 15. And the ſecond Adam made a quickning Spirit, Ibid.

p. 777XV.

Now, there is one Christ, not by converſion of the Deity into fleſh, but by aſſumption of the humanity into God.

XVI.

Wherefore, leſt the phraſe of the Evangeliſt, The Word was made fleſh, might ſeem to ſound of any change of the Word into fleſh, the holy Ghost explaines it by words equivalent, ſaying, That God is manifeſted in the fleſh, that Jeſus Chriſt came in the fleſh, that the Son of God was made partaker of fleſh and bloud, and took the ſeed of Abraham; and that in Chriſt dwells all fulneſſe of the Godhead bodily, 1 Tim. 3. 1 John. 4. Heb. 2. Col. 2.

The Animadverſion.

All this is right, if the phraſe of Athanaſius (The aſſumption of the humanity into God) be not wreſted againſt the meaning of Athanaſius: Theſ. 15.as if hee had ſignified either a changing of the humanity into God, or an equalling of it with God, or a transfuſion of the properties of the Godhead into it, by which it is made God: For, whatſoever is created (ſaith the ſame Athanaſius) cannot be God; therefore let the aſſumption of the humanity into God,De Arian. & Cathol. confeſſ. be underſtood of its hypoſtaticall union with God, or the Word, the properties of both being preſerved, according to the declaration of the Synod of Chalcedon, &c. And of Auſtin, in his book de fide ad Petrum, God then received into his perſon the forme of a ſervant, that is, the nature of a ſervant, &c.

XVII.

But the Word was not ſo made fleſh, as that any part thereof was aſſociated with the fleſh, which was aſſumed: For the Word, being of a ſpirituall nature, is not cut or divided into parts.

XVIII.

But the whole Word, in the whole fulneſſe of its Deity, is united to the fleſh: All of it (as the Orthodox Fathers tell us) was clothed with fleſh, and covered with it,foreign. wholly incarnate, inhumanated, and incorporated.

The Animadverſion.

And this is alſo right: For neither can there be, nor can we imagine how there ſhould be, any union of parts between the fleſh and the Word, which is indiviſible: The whole Word then aſſumed the whole fleſh, and with the whole fleſh the whole Word was perſonally united.

In what ſenſe the Word is ſaid to be clothed, and covered with fleſh, &c. wee have already explained in the ninth Theſis, to wit, not by way of an externall habit accidentally, but by way of an intrinſecall union ſubſtantially. Hence then it appeares, that the Word was not changed into fleſh, by taking of man; no more then our limbs, being clothed, are changed, as Auſtin ſpeaketh.Lib. qu. 38. quaest. 73. Neither is it a ſpeech proper enough, when they ſay, that the fleſh appertaines to the integritie of the perſon of the Word incarnate; that is, that it is an integrall part of it, as three feet belong to the integrity of the three-footed ſtoole: but rather, that the fleſh belongs to the perſon of the Word incarnate, as being the nature aſſumed by the Word into the unitie of the perſon, in which it might manifeſt it ſelfe to the world: as Auſtin ſaith, The Word was made fleſh, that is, clothed with fleſh, that to fleſhly men he might appeare in a fleſhly way.

Yet no man will deny or doubt, that the Incarnation of the Word, which is indiviſible, was totally made; if that be underſtood, without including the immenſity of the Word, within the dimenſions of the fleſh: as alſo without an ubiquitary diffuſion of the finite fleſh with the infinite Word.

XIX.

Which union, becauſe totall, is fooliſhly compared with examples of partiall unions; to wit, of the Sun, touching ſome part of his Orbe: Of the ſtone, encloſed within ſome part of the ring: Of Antwerp, ſituated neer a part of the ſea.

The Animadverſion.

We muſt confeſs, that this hidden & admirable union of the unmeaſurable nature of God, with the meaſured nature of man, cannot fully be expreſſed by any ſimilitude. p. 778And, although both ancient and moderne Divines make uſe of divers Similies; yet, we may truly ſay of them all, with Damaſcen, In all ſmilitudes, there are many diſsimilitudes. And, it is impoſſible to find examples, that may expreſſe the Deitie and Incarnation in every thing. Juſtin, Cyril, Athanaſius made uſe of theſe Similies that are taken from the Sun, a Ring, the Ocean. Baſil uſeth the ſimilitude of an hot iron: Athanaſius of a burned ſtick, or burning iron: Cyril of a burning coale: Damaſcen of a fiery ſword: Juſtin and Athanaſius of the body and light of the Sun: But none of all theſe ſimilitudes will exactly agree with the thing it ſelf. This man toucheth our Divines, for uſing examples of partiall unions; but with little ſinceritie: for, ſometimes they make uſe of ſuch Similies, not to declare exactly the thing it ſelfe, from which, we confeſſe, the examples of finite things are far diſtant; but onelyonly to ſhew the ſophiſtry of Ubiquitaries: For example; When Jacobus Andreas, at Maulbrun, did fooliſhly demonſtrate the Ubiquity thus, Gods right hand is every-where; the humanity of Chriſt ſits at Gods right hand: Ergo, the humanity is every-where. Our men, by a Syllogiſme, altogether like this (if you look up on the forme) made it appeare, that this was a naughty argument, and conſiſted of foure termes: The Ocean encompaſſeth the whole world; Antwerp is ſeated neere the Ocean: Ergo, Antwerp encompaſſeth the whole world. By this way they did not compare matter with matter, but one fault with another; for both Syllogiſmes were alike faulty: therefore the ſhewing of this errour was not fooliſh. Neither doth Doctor Hunnius demonſtrate better the illocalitie of the fleſh in the Word below, in his 36. Theſis. It is thus in briefe, The Word is illocall, the fleſh was aſſumed into the Word: Ergo, the fleſh is illocall. Why then doe wee not ſend this Diſputer to the foure termes of Antwerp, and the Ocean? For, as theſe are different termes, To be the Ocean, and to be ſeated neere the Ocean; ſo theſe are different, To be the Word, and to be in the Word: as in the Vulcanian demonſtration theſe were different ſpeeches, To be Gods right hand, and, To ſit at Gods right hand.

XX.

The ſimilitude of the union of the ſoule and body is more apt to declare this myſterie,Smidlin. in colloq. Maulbrun. p. 43. which Athanaſius uſed in his Creed; and Cyrillus, after him, in his Synodicall Epiſtle, ſaying, The Word, in the aſſumed nature, hath made ſuch an habitation for it ſelfe, as the ſoule is beleeved to have in its proper body.

The Animadverſion.

Of this Similie thus writeth Juſtin; In Expoſit. Symb. p. 301.Some (ſaith he) having conceived in their mind of this union, as of the union of ſoule and body, have ſo delivered it; and it's a convenient example, though not in all points, yet in ſome. Alſo the example of man is in ſome respect to be admitted, and in ſome reſpect to be avoided. And 'tis ſo indeed: For they agree thus, That, as the reaſonable ſoule and body are united into one perſon; and, as in one hypoſtaſis ſubſiſt two natures, diſtinct in their eſſences and properties, and concurring in theſe operations that are proper to men; and one of them working what is proper to it, but not without the communion of the other: Even ſo, ſaith Hierome, it is knowne, that one and the ſame Chriſt is God and man, and that he did work according to both formes;Ad Paulam & Euſtoch. to wit, of the humanity and divinity, and that by this he exerciſed two operations: For, both formes or natures did operate; the one communicating with the other in that which was proper to it: The Word operating what is proper to the Word, and the fleſh putting in execution what belongs to the fleſh, &c. But in many things the Similie will not hold: For, in man there is an union of two finite natures; but in Chriſt, of a finite nature, and an infinite. In man, both natures are ſhut up within the ſame bounds; but in Chriſt, the divinitie is not confined to the narrow limits of the fleſh. In man, the union is the compoſition of matter and forme; but in Chriſt, the fleſh is not the matter of the divinitie, nor this the forme of the fleſh. In man, there reſults a third thing out of the compoſition, which is neither of the other two; but in Chriſt, the Word or perſon is the ſame before the union, but naked and ſimple; after the union, clothed with fleſh, and in a manner compounded. In man, the union is diſſolved by death; but Chriſt will never lay aſide the nature which he once aſſumed. Laſtly, to this p. 779purpoſe ſerves that which Thomas obſerves:Part. ult. quaeſt. 2. In man (ſaith he) there is a two fold unitie made up; to wit, of the nature, and of the perſon: of the nature, when as the ſoule is formally united to the body, perfecting it; that of two, there may be made up one nature, as of the act and potentiality, of the matter and forme: and in this regard the ſimilitude conſiſteth not; becauſe the divine nature cannot be the forme of the body. 2. Of the perſon, as when of theſe is made up one man, conſiſting of a body and a ſoule; and in this is the ſimilitude: for one Chriſt ſubſiſteth in the divine and humane nature.

XXI.

Therefore, as the ſoule, in reſpect of its ſubſtance, is not without the body; for it is all united to its body: ſo the whole Word incarnate can neither be, nor be found, nor ought to be enquired for, out of its owne fleſh.

The Animadverſion.

By a manifeſt fallacie, from that which is ſaid respectively, or ſecundum quid, to that which is ſpoken ſimply, of a ſimilitude, hee concludes a falſhood: For, this is Hunnius his collection, The Similie drawne from man, is more fit then from other things: Ergo, it agrees in every thing; and, conſequently, the reaſon is alike of the ſoule and of the deity: that, as the ſoule is confined to the bounds of the body; ſo the deity doth no where ſubſiſt without the fleſh. Who may not here ſenſibly perceive the impoſture? He makes a compariſon between the ſoule and the Word, as if there were a parity between them; whereas there is an extreme imparity: for the ſoule, being a finite ſpirit, cannot be without the bodie, in which it is, ſo long as it is tied to the bodie, though it be all in all, and all in every part: But the Deitie of the Word is not a finite ſpirit, but immenſe, and moſt pure, by its moſt ſimple immenſity, all in the finite fleſh, and all, and the ſame together without the finite fleſh, and ſubſiſting without all things: For who will ſay, that the Deitie of the Word was onelyonly there; ſuppoſe in the mothers womb, in the Temple, in the Juſtice-Hall, on the Croſſe, in the Sepulchre, &c. where his fleſh was ſaid to be circumſcribed, and to be abſent in other places, where his fleſh was not? Who will ſay, that he did not fill heaven and earth, that he was not at Rome, at Athens, and every-where without Judea, at the ſame time when his bodie, that was moſt united then to him, did remaine within the limits of Judea alone? Surely, he who affirmes the contrary, either feignes a Deity encloſed and circumſcribed in the narrow bounds of the bodie; or elſe a bodie diffuſed every-where with the Deity; that is (to uſe few words) hee makes either a finite Deity, or an infinite bodie. This then is one of theſe falſe hypotheſes, by which this Sophiſter under-props the ubiquity of the fleſh. He addes alſo ſophiſtically, that the Word neither is, nor can be ſought or found, without its fleſh: which words neither have the ſame meaning, nor the ſame truth. For Orthodoxe men confeſſe, that the Word is not to be ſought out of the fleſh; becauſe in the fleſh onelyonly, as in his temple, he will be ſought and worſhipped by faith and prayers. And from hence they gather againſt the Ubiquitaries, that the fleſh of the Word doth not lurk within a ſacramentall cruſt; becauſe they neither worſhip it, nor ought they to worſhip it: yet they deny not therefore, that the Word is not elſewhere by that eſſentiall immenſitie, which hee hath in common with the Father and the holy Ghoſt: For ſo the Word, being encloſed within finite fleſh, ſhould be terminated or bounded; or elſe the fleſh ſhould have an immenſity every-where, with the immenſity of the Word; both which is falſe. Nor doe the Orthodox Fathers otherwiſe ſpeake or thinke. Athanaſius, De Incarnat. Verbi.The Word is in the fleſh, and over and above all things. Ibid. He ſubſiſteth over and above all things. Ibid. At the ſame moment, when he was in an humane body, hee was over and above all things. So Hieron ad Marcel. He who was infinite, was alſo in the Son of man totall. Auguſt.Lib. 2. de Incarn. The Son of God was totall in the body, and totall every-where.

XXII.

They are deceived then, and they reduce this admirable union to the narrowneſſe of one onelyonly place, who dreame, that the Word in the fleſh is in one, and onelyonly in that place, where the humane nature of Chriſt viſibly dwells; but beſides this place, that it ſubſiſteth over and above it, in other places innumerable.

p. 780The Animadverſion.

He condemneth for an errour, not ours, but the doctrine both of holy Writ, and of godly Antiquity: for, the Scriptures unanimouſly witneſſe, that the humane nature of Chriſt was viſibly confined ſtill to one place, and not to two or more at once inviſibly; the incomprehenſible [Word] in the meane time ſhewing its preſence, both in its fleſh, and elſe-where, where the fleſh is not, and the union ſtill remaining entire. The Fathers alſo write cleerely, that the Word was ſo in the fleſh, that it was not ſhut up within thoſe narrow confines, but that it ſubſiſted out of it, and over and above all things elſe. It is a fallacy, if not a falſhood, when he ſaith, that now this admirable union, is not to be confined to the narrow incloſure of one onelyonly place: for, though the fleſh be ſhut up in one place, it will not follow, that therefore the union is to be reduced to theſe narrow ſtraits; becauſe, to be reduced to a narrow place, and to be in a place, is the property of the fleſh, not of the union; but the properties of the natures neither make the union, nor effect it: otherwiſe, by the ſame reaſon one might cavill, that the union is corporeall, viſible, dead; becauſe, the fleſh is corporeall, viſible, and dead: or, that it is eternall, immenſe, and God; becauſe, the Word is eternall, immenſe, and God. But, although the fleſh is not diffuſed every-where with the [Word,] nor the Word circumſcribed by the narrowneſſe of the fleſh; notwithſtanding the fleſh is nowhere not united to the Word, and ſubſiſting by the Word; and the Word is nowhere not united to the fleſh, and ſubſiſting in the fleſh: whereſoever then the fleſh is, there is the union; and whereſoever the Word is, there is the union; not by reaſon of the diffuſion of the fleſh, but by reaſon of that moſt ſimple immenſity of the Word; by which he is ſo in the fleſh, that he is not therefore contained in the fleſh, but every-where together without it he filleth all things; and ſo he is without the fleſh, that notwithſtanding he ſubſiſteth every where in it, and that not by any one part of himſelfe, but totall; neither another perſon, but the ſame; for, we muſt not imagine, that there is one part of the Word in the fleſh, and another without it; but he wholly ſubſiſteth in the fleſh, and wholly without the fleſh; becauſe he is immenſe and impartible. Neither is there one Word in heaven, and another on earth, but the ſame is every-where in the fleſh, or incarnate, becauſe moſt ſimple; although in the meane while, the fleſh, both by the verity of its eſſence, and in one place where it wills, it remaineth.

We do not therefore dreame, that the [Word] in the fleſh is only in one place, in other infinite places without the fleſh, and therefore, without the union: for, it is every-where in its owne fleſh, ſupporting and moving by a ſecret and indiſſoluble union; but no where, and at no time deſerting it, or diſtant from it: but properly it is not either in one, or in infinite places, ſeeing theſe things are in place onelyonly, that have dimenſions. But God the Word is of that immenſity, that he hath neither a corporall, nor an intellectuall place, but metaphorically onelyonly, being ſaid to be there where his operation is knowne,Lib. 1. c. 16. as Damaſcene witneſſeth. In briefe, the [Word] is every-where, and ſo remaineth united to its fleſh, even exiſting without it; for, it can never be abſent from the fleſh, being immenſe, and every-where wholly the ſame, without extenſion or multiplication, though in the meane while, the eſſence of the fleſh is onelyonly in one place.

But, if this Ubiquitary Doctor underſtandeth not, or approveth not of theſe things, let him proceed in his dreame, of his dimenſive and extenſive [Word;] which is not totall every-where, but ſome-where it exiſteth in ſome part of it, or elſe is wholly ſome-where abſent: but, we beleeve with Athanaſius, that this is of high admiration, that the Word contained by none, containeth notwithſtanding all things; and being preſent in the body, is not elſe-where abſent, but ſubſiſteth over and above all things, and yet is moſt preſent in the natures of all things, but more chiefly in his owne fleſh. Theſe my ſteries are to be adored, but not to be ſquared by the dull edge of humane reaſon.

XXIII.

But becauſe, by the Apoſtles definition, the whole perſonall union is and conſiſteth in that p. 781corporall inhabitation and immanency of all fulneſſe of the deity in the fleſh, by an unavoidable conſequence we inferre, that where it dwels not in the fleſh, but is imagined to be without it, there it cannot be ſaid to be united to it.

The Animadverſion.

He proves the Word to be no-where without the fleſh, but firſt out of Pauls definition of union, as he ſaith; then, by a contrapoſition out of the definition, he thus ſeemes to gather: What is immanent in the fleſh, is not without it; the Word is immanent or dwels in the fleſh, becauſe the union is the inhabitation, or immanency of the Word in the fleſh; therefore the Word is not without the fleſh. Anſw. If he did contend, that the Word was no-where ſo without the fleſh, but that it is alſo in the fleſh, we would yeeld to him in all this: But, when he ſimply denyeth the Word to have any exiſtence out of the fleſh, that he may diffuſe the fleſh every-where with it; we anſwer to the Major propoſition, with a diſtinction; That cannot be without the fleſh, which is ſo inherent in it, as that it is ſhut up within the dimenſions of it: But we deny the Word to be ſo inherent in the fleſh, or that it is ſuch an immanency by which the Apoſtle ſhews rather the union, then defines it to be the corporall inhabitation of all fulneſſe of the deity in the fleſh; and the Adverſary himſelfe ſhortly after denyeth it.

For, the Word doth not ſo inhabit, as to be circumſcribed by the limits of the fleſh; nor is he ſo immanent, that he is no where without it; as the ſoule exiſting in the body, is no where out of the body: but that he is never ſeparated or abſent from it. The inhabitation then is not the encloſing of the Word within the fleſh, but a ſecret conjunction with the fleſh into one hypoſtaſis.

In that he calls the union an immanency, he hath not this out of the Apoſtle, but out of Damaſcen, who calls it foreign. (which word ſome tranſlate a permeation; others, an immeation, others, an immanency, or inhabitation) no wayes underſtanding the Eutychian mixture of the natures, or the circumſcription of the Word in the fleſh, or the diffuſion of the fleſh with the Word; but a mutuall, intimate, and indiſſoluble union of both natures into one hypoſtaſis, the natures and properties remaining entire: which is ſo well knowne out of Damaſcen, that it needs not be inſiſted on.

By a contrapoſition out of the definition he thus gathers, Where the Word is united to the fleſh, there it dwels in the fleſh, and ſo remaines in it, as that it is no where without it: therefore where it dwels not in the fleſh, but is fancied to be without it, there it cannot be ſaid to be united with it; which, becauſe it is abſurd (for ſo there will follow a Neſtorian ſeparation) it is alſo abſurd, that the Word ſhould be any-where without the fleſh.

But firſt, we have ſaid before,foreign. that Ubiety is improperly attributed to the Word and union; then it is falſe, which in the converting propoſition he aſſumes of ſuch an immanency, as that the Word is no-where without the fleſh; for this is to beg the matter in queſtion. Beſides, in the Propoſition converted, he admits of that fallacy which is called (Ignoratio elenchi, or) the ignorance of the reprehending Argument, feigning theſe two to be repugnant; to wit, The Word inhabiteth in the fleſh, and, the Word is without the fleſh, which indeed are not repugnant, by reaſon of the moſt ſimple immenſity of the Word, as is ſhewed. The Argument of our Adverſary directly concluding, is this, Where the Word is united to the fleſh, there it is not out of the fleſh, becauſe the union is the inhabitation; but the Word is every-where united to the fleſh; therefore it is no-where without the fleſh. But the Minor Propoſition hath this ignoration of the Elenchus, and truſts to a falſe definition: for, we will not yeeld him, that the union is ſuch an inhabitation as he fancies; wherefore we deny the Major: for, whereſoever the Word is, he inhabits all in the fleſh, and all without the narrowneſſe of the fleſh, filling heaven and earth with the immenſity of his eſſence,

XXIV.

Eſpecially, becauſe, according to this opinion, we muſt determine that the whole Word, (ſeeing he cannot be divided into parts) in his whole perſonality, and in the whole plenitude of the deity, is in innumerable places without his humanity; which were truly to draw in ſunder p. 782through many places, that moſt intrinſecall, and altogether indiſtant union.

The Animadverſion.

You ſing over againe the ſame ſong: To place the whole Word in his whole perſonality, and in the whole fulneſſe of the deity in innumerable places without his owne fleſh, is to diſtract in ſunder the indiſtant union of the natures; but to do this is a wicked thing; therefore ſo muſt that. We againe deny the Major, for the union remaines indiſtant, even when the whole Word without the narrowneſſe of the fleſh fills all other things; becauſe, by his moſt ſimple immenſity, neither all, nor halfe of him (ſeeing he is individed) departs, or is abſent from his fleſh; neither is he pulled away or ſeparated by any diſtance of place, but he ſubſiſts ſo all within it, that he is alſo all-preſent every-where without it: whereas, not another, but the ſame and entire Word is within the fleſh which is without it. And this argument of pulling aſunder the natures, is very ſilly; for it flowes from a falſe imagination, that the Word exiſting without the fleſh, remaines not united to the fleſh; which is both moſt falſe, and impoſſible: for, if it were any-where abſent from its fleſh, it were not immenſe; and, if in any part onelyonly it remained in the fleſh, it ſhould be divided. Therefore, to feigne any diſtance betweene the natures, is truly to feigne a Word having dimenſions; which our Adverſary, by cleering of himſelfe, ſufficiently ſheweth.

Some orthodox men untie this knot, by diſtinguiſhing the perſonality and deity of the Word; confeſſing that to be no-where out of his fleſh, ſeeing there is one perſonality of both: but this they make all to exiſt within and without the fleſh, in that the eſſence of the Word is ſimply infinite. But, leſt our Adverſaries ſhould cavill, that ſo we do not make the perſonality equally infinite with the eſſence of the Word; therefore we will wave this diſtinction. We know that the perſonality and divinity of the Word differ not ſubjectively, but onelyonly in ſome reſpect: when as then both are equally immenſe and moſt ſimple; by the ſame reaſon it muſt neceſſarily follow, that both ſubſiſt wholly in their fleſh, and wholly without the fleſh, and, with the Father and holy Ghoſt, fill heaven and earth.

XXV.

In the meane time, out of our doctrine, there doth not follow ſuch a ſhutting up of the Word into the nature aſſumed, as makes the perſon of the Word loſe his infinity, or become finite; but from bence rather is inferred this perpetuall immanency, inhabitation, and incarnation we ſpeake of, which elevates the finite humanity, into the infinite perſonality of the Son of God, and conſequently, it makes that the Word is never abſent from its fleſh, never diſtant from it,foreign. and never ſubſiſteth without it; but that without diſtance, as (Damaſcen ſaith) it is united with it, and remaineth with it above all locality of this created world, ineffably, and ſtill preſent.

The Animadverſion.

Here he perceives, that out of his immanency or inhabitation, neceſſarily followes the incluſion and finity of the Word; therefore he denies the ſequell: but in vaine, for thus he is convinced; What is ſo immanent in the finite fleſh, that it exiſteth no-where without it; that muſt neceſſarily be ſhut up within the dimenſions of the fleſh, and be finite, as the fleſh is finite: But the Word is thus immanent in the fleſh; it is therefore ſhut up within the finite dimenſions of the fleſh; which is abſurd. The Major is moſt true: our Adverſaries Minor is abſurd, there followes then an abſurd concluſion: He ſaith, that the perpetuall immanency followes out of his doctrine rather; but, this is to beg the matter in queſtion, to inferre an immanency out of an immanency. He ſaith,A prodigious ſpeech. that the immanency elevateth the finite humanity, into the infinite perſonality of the Son of God. If he underſtood this Teratologie of the union of the fleſh with the infinite hypoſtaſis of the fleſh, retaining the properties thereof, no orthodox man would reject it; but the ſtile of truth is plaine, whereas that of a lye is intricate: ſuch as this is. For, he doth not meane this of the union, as he ſaith, but of an ubiquitary diffuſion of the fleſh with the Word, which orthodox Divines ſimply deny; for, the fleſh can no more caſt off her finity and dimenſions, then ſhe can her very nature, no not in the union it ſelfe. Now, if remaining p. 783finite, ſhe is elevated into an infinity; that is, is made infinite; then ſure it muſt be both at once finite and infinite, quantitative and without quantity, fleſh and no fleſh: and, what is this, but to fancy an Ʋtopian Chimera? Againe, he ſaith, by meanes of this immanency, the Word is never abſent, no-where diſtant from his fleſh: but indeed, this is effected, not by the immanency which he feignes, but by his moſt ſimple immenſity; for, by this it is that the Word is all the ſame in his fleſh, and every-where without all. He ſaith, that by the meanes of this immanency, the Word never ſubſiſteth without the fleſh, but inſeparably is united to it. But, againe, he aſcribes a falſe effect, to an untrue cauſe, and admits ignorationem elenchi; for, the inhabitation of the Word in the fleſh, (which he, by an ambiguous terme, will rather call an immanency) is not his incluſion, or confining within the fleſh; that is, within the dimenſions of the fleſh: neither do theſe two, To be without the fleſh, and, To remaine inſeparably united to the fleſh, deſtroy one another, as was ſhewed but now. Yet, if both be not true together concerning the Word; neither can he be immenſe, nor can he be God. Laſtly, in that, he ſaith, the fleſh united to the Word, or the Word to the fleſh, remaineth ſo above all locality of this created world, it is either a vaine Teratologie, or a falſe opinion, that the fleſh is made illocall by the union, becauſe the Word is illocall; of which hereafter we will ſpeake upon the 36. Theſe.

XXVI.

But, it no wayes follows, if the Word, after the Incarnation, be not without the nature which was perſonally aſſumed; that therefore, we muſt beleeve him to be no-where without that place, in which Chriſts humane nature, by the condition of its eſſence, remaines.

The Animadverſion.

Here he avoids another rock, that, granting the immanency which he feignes, the Word will never be without the place of the nature aſſumed, therefore he muſt needs be finite: he denies the ſequell of this, but in vaine; for he is convinced thus: What is not without a finite nature exiſting in a certaine place, neither is it without that place, in which the finite nature exiſteth; but the Word is no where without his finite nature aſſumed, exiſting in a certaine place, where-ever it be; ergo, it is no where without that place, and conſequently, the Word is made finite. The Minor is our Adverſaries, the reaſon of the Major is manifeſt and firme: That, albeit the place be one thing, and the nature exiſting in that place be another thing; notwithſtanding the nature aſſumed, by the condition of its eſſence (as our Adverſary rightly confeſſeth) is not without a place, nor remaines out of a place, and the place is equall to it: whatſoever then is not without the nature aſſumed, as the thing contained or placed, neither is that without the place containing; becauſe, the thing containing, and the thing contained; the place, and the thing placed, are equall.

XXVII.

For the reaſon of the humanity it ſelfe is far different from that of the place, which naturally encompaſſeth and containeth it.

XXVIII.

For the humanity it ſelfe is elevated and tranſlated by the union into the hypoſtaſis of the onelyonly begotten Word: but the ambient place, without that hypoſtaſis of the Word, remaines perpetually.

The Animadverſion.

This eluding of the Major is too frivolous; for, although the reaſon of the humanity, and of the place be unlike in this, in that the one was aſſumed, the other was not aſſumed by the Word; yet, this remaines, that they are together, and equall in their limits and bounds: Hence it follows neceſſarily, that whatſoever is not without the one, is not without the other. All then that the Sophiſter proves, is, that the humanity is not the place; but he cannot overthrow that moſt true Maxime, Whatſoever is not without the thing placed, neither can it be without the place of the thing placed.

XXIX.

What wonder then if the Word be without the place of the humanity, but not without p. 784the ſubſtance of the humanity? ſeeing that the very fleſh, though in a place exiſting and appearing when it will; yet, notwithſtanding, by vertue of the union, it ſubſiſteth above locality, in the very perſon of the Son of God. Surely, in this reſpect it tranſcendeth ineffably, the very ſame place in which otherwiſe it remaineth.

The Animadverſion.

Yes, a great wonder it is; for, it is both a wonder, and an abſurdity to deviſe any thing without the thing containing, which is not alſo without the thing contained; without the place, which is not alſo without the thing placed: for example, without the walls of the City, which is not alſo without the towne-Hall of the City: without Witteberg, which is not alſo without the Palace of Hunnius, which he lately received in a preſent at Witteberg, over againſt the Tower, &c.

The fleſh of Chriſt remaines in a place, not onelyonly by reaſon of its will, but alſo, becauſe of the condition of its eſſence; witneſſe the 26. Theſe. therefore, it is not in a place onelyonly when it wills, but ſo long as it retaines its nature, it is neceſſarily in a place; whether that place be phyſicall, as was here on earth; or heavenly, as it is now in glory.

That the fleſh, by vertue of the union, ſubſiſteth above locality, and tranſcendeth the place in which it abideth, is both falſe, and implies a contradiction: falſe, becauſe the Adverſary himſelfe, in the 5. and 6. Theſis confeſſed, that the fleſh united to the Word, or in the union it ſelfe, is made like unto us in all things except ſin; therefore in the union it ſelfe it muſt be like to us, in regard of locality. But theſe are contradictories: That the fleſh, by the condition of its eſſence remaineth in a place, and yet by its eſſence tranſcendeth the ſame place; that is, not to remaine in a place, by what vertue ſoever that be done: for his ſubterfuge, concerning the diverſe reaſon of the eſſence and union, cannot, in this reſpect, remove the contradiction; whereas, the ſame reaſon or reſpect doth implicate or intangle it ſelfe, and is nothing elſe but an empty ſmoake; as before was ſhewed in the 6. Theſe.

XXX.

The matter will appeare more cleerely, if we obſerve the force of the Apoſtles phraſe, by which he teacheth, That the Son of God was the ſeed of Abraham; or, that he aſſumed humane nature of Abrahams ſeed, Heb. 2.

XXXI.

Here are to be conſidered the bounds of this divine aſſumption, as the Schoole-men ſpeake; to wit, from whence the Word aſſumed it, and to what he aſſumed it.

XXXII.

But he aſſumed his fleſh out of the ſubſtance of the Virgin Mary, which, becauſe it drawes its originall from Abraham, the Apoſtle rightly ſaith, that the ſeed of Abraham was taken.

XXXIII.

The Word aſſumed that maſſe which he tooke of the Virgin, not hither or thither, to this or that place.

XXXIV.

For, although the Son of God would have his fleſh in the time of his humiliation, that he might performe his worke on earth, to be ſubject to locality; and although, as yet, he can viſibly appeare, when, and where he will, in ſome place or other: yet, notwithſtanding, not any place, but the illocall hypoſtaſis of the onelyonly begotten Word is the limits, or bounds of this divine aſſumption, into which the fleſh of our Saviour is transferred by the union.

XXXV.

Which S. Athanaſius, in his Creed, hath learnedly and briefly comprehended; when he defines the hypoſtaticall union, to be the aſſuming of the humanity into God.

XXXVI.

The humanity then of Chriſt, by a reall aſſumption being transferred into God, or the perſonality of God, in which, all thought of place and locality ceaſeth; or, as Damaſcen orthodoxally writeth, having its exiſtence in the very Word it ſelfe; the humanity, I ſay, in reſpect of this perſonall union, doth, in a moſt high manner, tranſcend all locality, and hath truly obtained in the Word an illocall manner of exiſting.

p. 785XXXVII.

Therefore, that I may conclude in the moſt grave words of Doctor Chemnitius, The aſſumed nature is ſo united perſonally to the whole plenitude of the Deity of the Son of God, that the Word within that ſecret, moſt ſtrait, intimate, profound and excellent embracement, not of any one parcell, but of the whole fulneſſe of the Godhead, which with it is above, and without all place, hath the ſaid humanity within it ſelfe, with it ſelfe, and in its power perſonally united, and alwaies most preſent. And in that fulneſſe of the united Deity, the aſſumed nature, as Damaſcen ſaith, hath an individable, inſeparable, undiſ-jointed; or, in respect of place, an indiſtant immanencie.

XXXVIII.

The ſame opinion is at large handled in both the Confeſsions of Maſter Luther; and by the alledging of Luthers words, in the breviate, or forme of that agreement publickly received in thoſe countries, 'tis plaine, that it is approved by it.

The Animadverſion.

Who will not cry out here, With what knot ſhall I hold Proteus, ſo often changing his countenance? Who can here catch the Sophiſter? I warrant you, unskilfull men will grow amazed at ſuch ſtupendious teratologies. Hee ſaith, that the maſſe of mankind is not aſſumed hither or thither, to this or that place;Monſtrous ſpeeches. that not any place, but the illocall hypoſtaſis of the Son of God is the But, or Terminus ad quem of the aſſumption: That the fleſh of our Saviour was transferred to be the Terminus of the aſſumption: That it hath in a moſt high manner tranſcended all localitie: That in the Word it hath obtained an illocall way of ſubſiſting: That the Word hath the aſſumed nature within the embracement of the whole fulneſſe of the divine nature, with it ſelfe, within it ſelfe, by it ſelfe, in its power: That the humane nature, in the fulneſſe of the united Deitie, hath its immanencie undiſjoynted. Who ever ſpoke thus in the Church? This is the black ſtuffe of the fiſh Sepia, and the empty ſmoak of jugling tricks, by which the ſimple doctrine of the Son of God is obſcured, and the fooliſh world is bewitched, that living and ſeeing they ſee not, nor feele ſuch groſſe lies.foreign. This is a new and a treacherous way of ſpeaking, quite different from theſe briefe delineations of wholſome words in Scripture, and in pious antiquitie, concerning this myſterie; by which the Sophiſter ſufficiently, if I am not deceived, hath teſtified, that this which he utters is a new and monſtrous kind of doctrine: For, they that broach new doctrines, do for the moſt part deviſe new phraſes.

Now to the matter: The Sophiſter in theſe Poſitions deviſeth another falſe ſuppoſition, by which hee may keep up the ubiquitie of the fleſh; That the fleſh of our Saviour, in the union of the Word, is made illocall. This hee endeavours to beat out of the Apoſtolicall terme of Aſſumption, beſprinkling ſome Schoole-termes.

But he maliciouſly depraves the words of Scripture, and phraſes of the Schoole-men: For, the aſſuming of Abrahams ſeed doth not ſignifie in Paul an exalting, or transferring of mans nature into the illocalitie of the Son of God, by which it is alſo made illocall; but an individuall hypoſtaticall union with the Son of God, the nature remaining entire, and the true properties thereof: becauſe the fleſh aſſumed, is the fleſh of the Son of God; not out of the union, but in the union; not without the Word, but in the Word, both before, and in his glory. And the Son of God is our brother, fleſh of our fleſh, and bone of our bones: in which communion of our fleſh with the Son of God, all Chriſtian comfort and ſalvation conſiſteth. So the Apoſtle himſelfe, in the precedent words, explaines this aſſuming: The Son of God is made partaker of fleſh and bloud, as the children are, after the ſame manner.

He corrupteth alſo the Schoole-termes: For, they tell us, that the Terminus ad quem of the aſſumption, is not the nature, but the perſon: becauſe (as they ſay) the union was made in the perſon, not in the nature; that is, becauſe, by the union, the two natures did not unite into one nature, but into one perſon of the Son of God; p. 786ſubſiſting firſt in one, now in two natures, the divine and humane, inconfuſed and entire. But in no caſe doe they ſpeak or agree with this Sophiſter, that the fleſh of our Saviour was transferred into the terme of the aſſumption; that is, into the illocall hypoſtaſis of God, that therein it might be illocall. Theſe are peſtilent ſnares: for, ſo the Sophiſter may readily inferre, that, by the ſame way, the fleſh in the Word is God, is immenſe, is every-where. But let us wipe away the painting, and reduce this prodigious ſophiſtry to a few points. Thus then in briefe hee argues:

What is aſſumed into the illocall hypoſtaſis of the Word, that doth obtaine, by this aſſumption, an illocall manner of existence in the Word; that is, to be illocall. The fleſh of our Saviour was aſſumed into the illocall hypoſtaſis of the Word: Ergo, the fleſh of our Saviour hath obtained in the Word an illocall manner of exiſtence; that is, to be illocall. Hee proves the Major, Theſ. 36. Becauſe in God, and in the hypoſtaſis of God, all thought of place and localitie ceaſeth. The Minor, Theſ. 34. Becauſe the illocall hypoſtaſis of the Word, is the terme of the aſſumption, into which, by the union, the fleſh is tranferred. Alſo, by the authority of Athanaſius, defining the hypoſtaticall union, by the aſſuming of the humanitie into God. Anſw. That here is ſophiſtry, is plaine, by the manifeſt falſhood of the Concluſion, fighting againſt the whole Evangelicall hiſtory, which teſtifieth, that the humane nature of Chriſt, aſſumed by the Word, was alwaies locall. The Major then is onelyonly true of that which is aſſumed either by converſion into that locall hypoſtaſis of the Word, or by coequation with it; but not of that which is aſſumed by ſuch an hypoſtaticall union, which leaveth, and preſerveth entire and inconfuſed, the nature and properties of that which aſſumeth, and of that which is aſſumed. Now, that in this ſenſe and manner the fleſh of our Saviour was aſſumed into the illocall hypostaſis of the Son of God, none but a Neſtorian or Eutychian Heretick will deny. So then, here are foure termes in this Argument. If the Sophiſter will not admit of a diſtinction, and alſo will contend the Major to be true of that which is aſſumed by the hypoſtaticall union, the proprieties being preſerved, wee deny it all, as being moſt falſe: For the hypoſtaſis of the Word, as it is illocall, ſo alſo it is infinite, eternall, incorporeall, begot of the Father, incarnate, by nature God: neither for this is it true, that whatſoever is aſſumed by ſuch an hypoſtaſis of the Word, that muſt be alſo infinite, eternall, incorporeall, begot of the Father, incarnate, and by nature God.

Secondly, we deny alſo the conſequence; becauſe it is a manifeſt fallacy of that which is not the cauſe, as if it were the cauſe: For, the cauſe of the illocalitie of the fleſh, is feigned to be the aſſumption of the fleſh into the illocall Word, which cauſe is no cauſe. For, the Word aſſumed not the fleſh, by which, or becauſe it is illocall; but by which, or becauſe it is the ſecond perſon, diſtinguiſhed from the Father and holy Ghoſt. The reaſon of this is firme and manifeſt, which the Sophiſter, by no inke of the Sepia, can darken; becauſe the aſſumption of the fleſh was made, not according to any naturall propertie, as is illocalitie, by which the Word is united to the Father and holy Ghoſt; but according to the characteriſticall properties, by which he is diſtinguiſhed from the Father and holy Ghoſt, as Damaſcen excellently ſheweth:Lib. 3. cap. 7. Otherwiſe, either the aſſumption had not been made ſolely by the Word, but alſo by the Father and holy Ghoſt; or elſe ſurely all the other naturall attributes of the Word, none excepted, ſhould be attributed to the fleſh, by the aſſumption or vertue of the union: and ſo monſtrouſly wee might affirme, that the fleſh in the eternall, infinite, incorporeall Word, &c. did moſt eminently tranſcend all reſpect of time, finitie, corporietie, &c. and hath truly obtained an eternall, infinite, incorporeall way of exiſting. If ſo, what will ubiquitariſme leave for Eutyches? Where will our Adverſaries ſixth Theſis ſtand? Where will our brother be? our fleſh? our faith and comfort?

Wherefore, in that with ſo much cunning the Sophiſter urgeth the illocalitie of the Word, he paints to no purpoſe: for, by this he will be no more able to prove p. 787the locall, true, and ſolid fleſh, as hee calls it, to be made illocall, by the illocall Word, in the vertue of the union; then if he ſhould ſay, that mans bodie, by the force of union, hath moſt highly tranſcended all denſitie, corporietie, mortalitie, &c. and doth truly obtaine in the ſoule a rationall, ſpirituall, immortall, &c. manner of exiſting, becauſe it is hypoſtatically united with the reaſonable, ſpirituall, immortall ſoule. Away with ſuch trifles.

The proofe of the Major is nothing, but like to the former fallacie of non cauſae; becauſe the illocalitie of God aſſuming, is no more the cauſe of the illocalitie of the fleſh aſſumed, then the eternitie, ſimplicitie, immenſitie of the ſame, makes the fleſh eternall, moſt ſimple, and immenſe. We are not onelyonly not to conceive any place or localitie in God, but alſo time, finitie, and humanitie muſt ceaſe to be in our thoughts. Anſw. Muſt then the thought of theſe in the fleſh aſſumed ceaſe? No: becauſe the union is ſo made, that the natures and naturall properties remain entire, and inconfuſed.

Neither is the proofe of the Minor to any purpoſe; for, the illocall hypoſtaſis of the Word, is the terme or limit, not of the fleſh, but of the aſſumption of the fleſh. Neither is the fleſh made the very illocall hypoſtaſis of the Word, or changed into it; but ſo by it and in it aſſumed, that it ſubſiſteth in it, and is ſuſtained and borne up by it, as the proper fleſh of the Word. In the meane while, let it be and remain even in the Word the true and locall fleſh, ſuch as was by the Word, and in the Word aſſumed.

Neither is this the opinion of the Schooles, as I ſhewed before, when they ſay, That the hypoſtaſis is the Terminus ad quem of the Aſſumption; or, that the union is terminated in the perſon, as if the nature aſſumed were made the hypoſtaſis, or were terminated and defined by the hypoſtaſis; but that with the Word aſſuming, it is united into one hypoſtaſis; and that the union of two natures makes not one nature, but one perſon. In which ſenſe they alſo diſpute, that the union is not made in the perſon, but in the nature. In vaine then, under this vizard of the Schoolmen, doth he ſeek to hide himſelfe. Furthermore, Athanaſius underſtands the humanitie to be ſo aſſumed into God, that it is not therefore made God, but that it ſubſiſteth in the perſon of God, and is the proper fleſh of God; that God may be truly man, and man truly God.

As for Chemnitius his ſwelling words, the ſimple truth is no waies moved by them. In vaine then doth the Sophiſter defend himſelfe with this target. What is more uſuall then, Claw mee, and I will claw thee?

From Maſter Luther (who, though in ſome paſſages hee wrote well, concerning our Lords laſt words) our orthodox men appeale (leſt they ſhould ſeem to depend on men) to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter: all which teſtifie, that the fleſh of our Saviour, even in the Word, was and remained locall. They appeale to our Saviour himſelf, who, after his reſurrection, in his locall fleſh, not without the Word, but in the Word; not without the union, but being then moſt united to the Word, ſtanding in the midſt of his Diſciples locally, ſaid, See, and touch; a ſpirit hath not fleſh and bones, as you ſee mee have. They appeale from both the Confeſſions of Luther, to both the Teſtaments of the living God, to the Auguſtan Confeſſion, and to Maſter Luthers owne ſounder writings: in which he rejecteth the ubiquitie of the fleſh. Finally, they appeale from the Bergenſin harmonie, to the harmonie of the holy Evangeliſts and Apoſtles; which, we know, is publickly received in the Church of Chriſt.

XXXIX.

Out of what is ſaid, it appeares alſo, that the union of the Word with the fleſh, and of the natures themſelves, one with another, is to be deſcribed by a true and ſolid communion.

The Animadverſion.

Now, in the end, he deduceth ſuch conſectaries, which, being rightly underſtood, no orthodox Divine will reject: But all of them are full of ſnares; of which, the younger ſort muſt be briefly warned.

p. 788The firſt is, That the union of the natures themſelves, one with another, is to be deſcribed by a true and ſolid communion; This is well. Why then hitherto did he not thus deſcribe it, but defined it, a bare immanencie; when plainly and fully it ſhould have been defined an union, leſt the title ſhould lye? But afore I gave the Reader a caveat concerning this cunning, in the Argument.

Among the orthodox Fathers, Communion often ſignifieth an union; becauſe the one common hypoſtaſis of the two natures is made up by union: and this is the true and ſolid communion of the natures; becauſe truly and ſolidly, that is, moſt really and narrowly the Deitie is communicated to the humanitie, and the humanitie to the Deitie; that is, ſo united, that they are one perſon, their natures and properties remaining entire. So Damaſcen, lib. 3. cap. 6. The divinity, in one of his hypoſtaſis, hath totally communicated himſelfe,foreign. or is united to us. Fulgentius to Donat. Man ſhould never have received from God the grace of ſalvation, if the communion, that is, the union of the divine and humane nature, did not remaine in one perſon of Chriſt.

Yet oftner, and properly in the Fathers, Communion ſignifieth the common predication of either of the natures and properties thereof, on the whole perſon in the concrete: Which communication is not the union it ſelfe, but the effect or conſequence of the union; and this communion is true and ſolid, and (as they ſpeak) moſt really in the perſon: for it makes, that God the Word is really, ſolidly, and truly man, who ſuffered, died, roſe againe, and was received into glory; and that man, truly, ſolidly, and moſt really, is God eternall, omnipotent, immenſe, and every-where. But he cannot be called ſo in the natures; for, it is not the cauſe that the Deitie is truly and ſolidly the humanitie, or man, or that it ſuffered, and died, and was raiſed and aſſumed into glory, &c. nor that the humanitie is truly and ſolidly God, or the Deitie, eternall, omnipotent, immenſe, and everywhere: for what elſe were ſuch a communication, then an Eutychian confuſion of the properties, and therefore of the natures? And ſo much of the firſt conſectarie.

But the Sophiſter cunningly underſtands the true and ſolid communion of the natures, to be that reall and mutuall communication of the properties made in the natures; that is, the transfuſion of the divine properties into the fleſh, and of the humane into the Deitie: although Chemnitius, and ſome of the ſounder Ubiquitaries, have not as yet abſolutely confeſſed this mutuall communication, feigning of a true mutuall union, a communication not truly mutuall in the natures, but in the humane nature only: which wiſe remedy overthrowes it ſelf ſufficiently, and is cunningly concealed here by the Sophiſter; untill by the next Diſputation he produce it againe upon the ſtage, but died in brighter colours, I warrant you.

XL.

Therefore we affirme, that the very perſon or hypoſtaſis of the Word is communicated, and (that I may uſe the words of S. Cyril) ineffably conferred; ſo that, according to Damaſcen, that hypoſtaſis of the Word, is alſo made the hypoſtaſis of the fleſh.

XLI.

For, if the Deity, and the nature of the aſſumed humanity in Christ be one perſon, it is neceſſary, that that perſon of the Deity of the Word be common to both natures; to the Deity naturally, but to the humanity, by vertue of the union, perſonally.

XLII.

For, if the Word, no leſſe then the children, be really participant of fleſh and bloud, Heb. 2. why hath not the fleſh by turne been partaker of the Word alſo? or (which is all one) of its hypoſtaſis? and that not in name onelyonly, but truly and ſolidly?

XLIII.

For, either the fleſh will really be the perſon, which is abſurd; or (which is a neceſſary conſequence) will really communicate with the perſon of the Word aſſuming.

The Animadverſion.

This is the other Corollarie, That the very hypoſtaſis is communicated to, and collated upon the humanity ineffably. This is alſo granted, if it be rightly underſtood, p. 789that this communication or collation is made by the hypoſtaticall union; by which, one and the ſame hypoſtaſis of the Word and fleſh is made up, the natures, and naturall properties remaining entire: But this communication or collation of the hypoſtaſis, doth in no wiſe make the fleſh it ſelfe the hypoſtaſis: and therefore, nor God, nor omnipotent, immenſe, illocall, every-where, &c. which cunningly he intimates doth follow from thence, and goeth about to make it ſo. In the like ſenſe we receive as orthodox, when he ſaith, That the fleſh truly and ſolidly hath become partaker of the hypoſtaſis of the Word, and communicates really with the hypoſtaſis of the Word aſſuming. Neither needed hee to ſweat and toile ſo much in proving of this; but who obſerves not, and abhorres the Sophiſters cunning, concerning the ubiquitary communication, by which the fleſh is made God, immenſe, illocall, every-where? Above alſo, Theſ. 3. he made the fleſh partaker of the perſon of the Word, by force of the union: Of which phraſe, ſee the Animadverſion there.

XLIV. But, if the perſon of the Word is communicated and collated upon the humanity; doubtleſſe, the Deity of this perſon muſt needs alſo be communicated to it: leſt we imagine, that the Deity of the Word is really different from its hypoſtaſis.

The Animadverſion. Nor doe we deny this third conſectary, That the very Deitie of the Word was communicated to the humanitie; that is, perſonally united: For the Deitie of the Word, and the hypoſtaſis of the Word, are the ſame in eſſence; they onelyonly differ in ſome reſpect: therefore, as the hypoſtaſis, ſo alſo the Deitie of the Word, is truly ſaid to be; and, is indeed, communicated to the humanitie: Or, as he in great letters writes it, COLLATED; to wit, by the hypoſtaticall union, which makes that man, but not the humanitie, is God, and every-where: For, the union makes the natures and properties common, not to the nature or natures in the abſtract; as if one nature ſhould be another, or both, or have the properties of both: but to the perſon in the concrete, that of both natures there be one perſon, having and requiring in it ſelfe the properties of both.

XLV.

For this cauſe the Apoſtle teacheth, That all fulneſſe of the Deitie in Chriſt dwells bodily, in the higheſt way of communion, next to the mysterie of the Trinity, which Eccleſiaſtick Writers illuſtrate and expreſſe, by the Similie of ſoule and body: as likewiſe of the fire, and burning iron.

The Animadverſion.

The Deitie of the Word, and the fulneſſe of the Deitie of the Word are the ſame; for, the Deitie is void of all diviſion and multiplication: therefore, as that, ſo this is communicated to the humanitie; or, as the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, It dwells in Chriſt bodily or perſonally: So that the fulneſſe of the Deitie inhabiting, and this maſſe inhabited, are one bodie, one perſon, one Suppoſitum, as the School-men call it. But what is this inhabitation to that fictitious effuſion of the divine properties into the fleſh? As for the Similie of the ſoule and bodie, how it agrees, we have noted above upon the 20. Theſis.

The Similie of iron, and a coale, and a fierie ſword, is uſed by Athanaſius, Cyril, and Damaſcen, to declare that moſt inward and inſeparable union and communication of the natures; but it is not like in every thing: and if it were, it would not help the ubiquitarie communion; it could prove nothing againſt Scripture: for the union there, is not of two ſubſtances, but the formall copulation of ſubject and accident: which, as it makes not the heat to be iron, nor hard, not heavie; ſo neither doth the heat make iron, nor ſoft, nor light, &c.

XLVI.

Ʋnder this plenitude of all the Deity, infallibly all the majeſtie of the properties of the Word is underſtood. Of the communication of which majeſtie, as alſo of the properties, by Gods help, we will diſcourſe in the next Diſputation.

p. 790The Animadverſion.

Neither is this laſt denied by orthodox men, That under the plenitude of all the Deitie, all the majeſtie of the properties of the Word is underſtood: For, what elſe are the properties of the Word, whether naturall, or characteriſticall, then the very fulneſſe of the Deitie of the Word? But away with ſophiſticall cunningneſſe; That the majeſtie of the properties of the Word is the Deitie, the immenſitie, the illocalitie, the ubiquitie transſuſed by vertue of the union from the Word into the fleſh really: which, if the Sophiſter ſhall attempt to prove in his next diſputation, by Gods help, there ſhall be thoſe, who, with ſolid arguments out of Gods word, and pious antiquitie, will overthrow what he binds. In the meane while he is warned, if he cheriſheth no monſter, that he ſpeak with an upright mouth,foreign. without prodigious phraſes: For, a wiſe mans words are upright.