Argum. 2 This is the blasphemy of Samos•te•••, Arius, and the late Antitrinitaries▪ that the man Christ is not properly and naturally God, but only by accidental participation of the Divine proprieties, majesty, honour, power, and virtue. In like manner conceive the Ubiquitaries of the deity of the man Christ, defining the personal union, by this only communicating of proprieties, whereby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent & present in every place. So that the same man is, and is called God, not because properly and naturally he is so, but because from God there is given unto him infinite power, majesty, glory, and all gifts of the holy Ghost without measure. But this accidental bestowing of the deity and all properties thereof, did not make Christ properly and naturally God▪ but only by divine grace, or God improperly so called; because he is not the natural deity of the word, but a certain participation thereof with force and efficacy. But therefore was it objected by true Christians against the Arians that they overthrew the true and eternal Deity of Christ, because they did not account him God by nature but only by participation of dignity and majesty through grace. Seeing therefore the ⟨p. 201⟩Ubiquitaries only of equalling our Immanuel to God by participation of proprieties, do take away his true and eternal deity, we do with good reason condemn and detest this doctrine of theirs as blasphemo•ie and heretical. This their own words and sentences do witness, as Brentius in Recognie. Pag 20. Jacob. Andr. Thes. 20. disputation. Tunigeus. Item. Thes. 25 & 26. Et Apolog. Ingolstad. 26. Where it is gathered, that the opinion of the Ubiquitaries of the deity of the man Christ, is all one with that of the Arians and Antitrinitaries, that is, that by all these he is accounted not God by nature, but only by grace of participation, a new, temporary, created, and adoptive God. Which if it be true, Christ shall not be [Greek or Hebrew], God & man, but [Greek or Hebrew], a Divine man; such as also he is accounted by the Ubiquitaries, who (at witnesseth Seruetus in his first book De Trimitate) say that God may communicate unto man the fullness of his Deity, & give unto him his Divinity, majesty, power, and glory. Which blasphemy, being the same both, we utterly hate and detest. Argum. 3.
Argum. 2 This is the blasphemie of Samos•te•••, Airtus, and the late Antitrinitaries▪ that the man Christ is not properlie and naturally God, but only by accidentall participation of the Divine proprieties, maiestie, honor, power, and vertue. In like manner conceaue the Vbiquitaries of the deitie of the man Ch•ist, de•ining the personal vnion, by this only cōmunicating of proprieties, wherby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent & present in every place. So that the same man is, and is called God, not because properly and naturally he is so, but because from God there is giuen vnto him infinite power, maiestie, glorie, and all giftes of the holy Gost without measure. But this accidentall bestowing of the deitie and all properties therof, did not make Christ properly and naturally God▪ but onely by divine grace, or God improperly so called; because he is not the naturall deitie of the worde, but a certaine participation thereof with force and efficacie. But therfore was it obiected by trew Christians against the Arrians that they ouerthrew the trew and eternall Deitie of Christ, because they did not accoumpt him God by nature but onely by participation of dignitie and maiestie through grace. Seeing therefore the ⟨p. 201⟩Vbiquitaries only of equaling our Immanuel to God by participation of proprieties, do take awaie his trewand eternall deity, we do with good reason condemne and detest this doctrine of theirs as blasphemo•ie and hereticall. This their owne wordes and sentences do witnesse, as Brentius in Recognie. Pag 20. Iacob. Andr. Thes. 20. disputation. Tunigeus. Item. Thes. 25 & 26. Et Apolog. Ingolstad. 26. Where it is gathered, that the opinion of the Vbiquitaries of the deitie of the man Christ, is all one with that of the Arrians and Antitrinitaries, that is, that by all these he is accoūpted not God by nature, but onely by grace of participation, a new, temporarie, created, and adoptiue God. Which if it be trew, Christ shall not be 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, God & mā, but 〈non-Latin alphabet〉, a Divine man; such as also he is accoūted by the Vbiquitaries, who (at witnesseth Seruetus in his first booke De Trimitate) say that God may cōmunicate vnto man the fulnesse of his Deitie, & giue vnto him his Diuinitie, maiestie, power, and glorie. Which blasphemie, being the same both, we vtterly hate and detest. Argum. 3.
