The Sum of Christian Religion, Animadversions · Argument
The Argument of HUNNIUS his Theſes. Of the hypoſtaticall Union.
THeſe poſitions of Hunnius have in their front and title honey cunningly couched, but in the belly very gall. The front extends almoſt to the 17. Theſis; ſo far orthodoxally enough, (if you except the ambuſhes) they confute the old Hereſies, by proving that Chriſt is a perſon God and Man, conſiſting of two natures, true and intire; to wit, the divine and the humane; and that the Son of God, the Word, was made fleſh, not by converſion of the deity into fleſh, but by aſſumption of the divinity into God; to which, who freely and heartily ſubſcribes not, he is not Orthodox.
The belly ſwels with Ubiquitary poyſon in the next Theſis to the 39. for, he layeth certaine hypotheſes or ſuppoſitions, concerning the manner and force of the union, as it were foundations of the future Diſputation, concerning the reall communication of the properties, and of the omnipreſence of his fleſh, which he paints with wonderfull Sophiſtry; but all of them are falſe; to wit, That the whole Word did aſſume the whole fleſh ſo, that as the fleſh is never without the Word, ſo the Word is never without the fleſh; that is, without the dimenſions of the fleſh: that ſuch an union is the dwelling of the whole fulneſſe of the deity within the fleſh, that without the fleſh, the deity of the Word is no where: that finally, the fleſh hath moſt eminently tranſcended all locality, being in the illocall perſon of the Word, and that it hath truly obtained an illocall manner of exiſting; that is, to be illocall in the union. In the interim, he cunningly conceales the definition and forme of the hypoſtaticall union, which he ought firſt to have explained, as being the head of the whole diſpute, and not delude people with a lying title. But this he did, leſt the manifeſt falſhood of the ſpecificall difference ſhould have weakened and ſhaken his cauſe before its time.
The taile againe ſhews the honey, but hides the ſting; for he deduceth foure conſectaries or corollaries: 1. That the union ſhould be defined by the true and ſolid communion. 2. That the perſon of the Word be communicated and conferred upon the fleſh ineffably. 3. That the deity of the perſon of the Word, or the whole fulneſſe of the deity, be communicated to the humanity. 4. That finally, under this plenitude of the whole deity, the majeſty of the properties of the Word be infallibly underſtood. No Orthodox man will contradict theſe points, if they be meant of the true union of the natures, and communion of the properties in the concret; but that both theſe, and the precedent paſſages, for the moſt part, all of them are nothing elſe then treacherous ſubterfuges of Ubiquity, even thoſe that have but weake eyes may ſee; and this in a briefe examination ſhall be ſhewed.