A commentary or, exposition upon the divine second epistle general, writtenA commentary or, exposition vpon the diuine second epistle generall, written

That partakers, &c. Before I show you the vine, let me cut up two brambles: one whereof the Manichees, the other the Familists, planted (by force) on this ground: there went but a pair of sheers between them: that of the Manichees was a dreame, Nos ex traduce Dei ortos, that we came by traduction from the nature of God himself: and when this temporary life had run the course; we should return to the same ancient estate, and become a divine nature. They presupposed a commixtion of Gods nature with ours; as if they were melled together like wine and water. This is a blasphemous heresy, to think there is Transfusio divinae essentiae in hominem, infinitae in circumscriptam: a transfusion of the divine being into man, as if Infiniteness could be in a circumscriptible essence. A creature cannot be made of the essence of God, for it hath no parts, it is not divisible. The other is of some fanatical spirits, who think we do so pass into Gods nature, that our nature is quite swallowed up of his. So they take that place, 1 Cor. 15.28. that at the last God shall be all in all. But certainly this delirement never came into the holy Apostles minds; that our natural being should be lost in the essence of God: they meant not that we should lose our nature, but the corruption of our nature; and that by a sanctified renovation we should be made partakers of the Divine immortality and blessedness. Thus we are made one with God, secundum modulum nostrum, according to the capableness of our nature. The Familists say, we are deified: so as GOD became man, man becomes God: Their own words are, men are deified, and God hominified. These are new words, such as the ancient Fathers never taught nor thought. But those men thought it no treason to coin new words: and indeed it was necessary that they who would coin a new religion, should also coin new terms, new paradoxes. There were some held, that mans soul was part of Gods own essence, ⟨p. 71⟩Virgil, Divinae particula aurae. Indeed it is a breath of God, a work of God, not a part of God.

That partakers, &c. Before I shew you the vine, let me cut up two brambles: one wherof the Maniches, the other the Familists, planted (by force) on this ground: there went but a paire of sheeres between them: that of the Maniches was a dreame, Nos ex traduce Dei ortos, that we came by traduction from the nature of God himselfe: and when this temporary life had runne the course; we should returne to the same ancient estate, and become a divine nature. They presupposed a commixion of Gods nature with ours; as if they were mell'd together like wine and water. This is a blasphemous heresie, to thinke there is Transfusio divinae essentiae in hominem, infinitae in circumscriptam: a transfusion of the divine being into man, as if Infinitenesse could be in a circumscriptible essence. A creature cannot be made of the essence of God, for it hath no parts, it is not divisible. The other is of some fanaticall spirits, who thinke we doe so passe into Gods nature, that our nature is quite swallowed up of his. So they take that place,