But in respect of both natures together, it is called an union personal, because these two natures are together united in the same person. In respect of the humane nature, it cannot be called an Assumption (actively understood, that is an assuming, but passively only, that is a being assumed) nor a Deification, because the divine person existed from eternity, and took unto himself and adjoined the humane nature (not the person) in time, because the humane nature assumed, did never exist apart, and by it self, and therefore never had in it self the formal reason of a person; and therefore also it cannot be said to have assumed the nature, or person divine, but only to have been assumed by it; Seeing actions are of suppositions or persons, and not of the nature: But the divine person (not the ⟨p. 41⟩nature properly) is said to have assumed the humane nature, not the person. Therefore the humane nature cannot so properly and rightly be said to be deified, as either the divine nature or person is said to be incarnate, or made man; for that is equivalent to made flesh, which the Scripture often useth. We read then in this place, and its like that God was made manifest, or visible in the flesh, that is, in the nature of man (for flesh there) by a Synecdoche signifies the whole nature of man, as well the soul as the body, and to the like sense we read that the Word was made flesh, John 1. 14. But we no where read that flesh was made God, or that the flesh or humane nature was made invisible in God; although these things may be said, but not so properly, nor so freely from danger and abuse. But here we must not think, that for the union of the divine nature with the humane, that therefore there was any real change properly produced or made in the divine nature, but relative and of reason, or notional only; all the real mutation being in the humane nature only. For whatsoever is mutable is imperfect, but the divine nature is no ways imperfect. Therefore though the divine nature in Christ be under another relation or habitude, than before the incarnation; yet that is for no real change in it self, but in the humane nature assumed: As the Sun is called illuminating from his action that he hath on the air, which was not before (let us suppose this) and yet the Sun is not thereby changed in it self, but the air only is changed.
But in respect of both natures together, it is called an union personal, because these two natures are together united in the same person. In respect of the humane nature, it cannot be called an Assumption (actively understood, that is an assuming, but passively onely, that is a being assumed) nor a De•fication, because the divine person existed from eternity, and took unto himself and adjoyned the humane nature (not the person) in time, because the humane nature assumed, did never exist apart, and by it self, and therefore never had in it self the formal reason of a person; and therefore also it cannot be said to have assumed the nature, or person divine, but onely to have been assumed by it; Seeing actions are of suppositions or persons, and not of the nature: But the divine person (not the ⟨p. 41⟩nature properly) is said to have assumed the humane nature, not the person. Therefore the humane nature cannot so properly and rightly be said to be deified, as either the divine nature or person is said to be incarnate, or made man; for that is equivalent to made flesh, which the Scripture often useth. We read then in this place, and its like that God was made manifest, or visible in the flesh, that is, in the nature of man (for flesh there) by a Synecdoche signifies the whole nature of man, as well the soul as the body, and to the like sense we read that the Word was made flesh, Iohn 1. 14. But we no where read that flesh was made God, or that the flesh or humane nature was made invisible in God; although these things may be said, but not so properly, nor so freely from danger and abuse. But here we must not think, that for the union of the divine nature with the humane, that therefore there was any real change properly produced or made in the divine nature, but relative and of reason, or notional onely; all the reall mutation being in the humane nature onely. For whatsoever is mutable is imperfect, but the divine nature is no wayes imperfect. Therefore though the divine nature in Christ be under another relation or habitude, than before the incarnation; yet that is for no real change in it self, but in the humane nature assumed: As the Sun is called illum•nating from his action that he hath on the ayr, which was not before (let us suppose this) and yet the Sun is not thereby changed in it self, but the ayr onely is changed.
