bodies and yet be Angels or Spirits still much more must it be believed that God could do the same Thus still he prosecutes his Argument and all his care was to prove not that Christ was God for that was granted on all hands but that he was Man which some denyed upon that very ground because he was God without controversie Again in his book of Prescriptions against Hereticks De Praescrip p. 36. He lays down somewhat like the form of a Creed and agreeable to our own Where first he says They believed one God the World's Creator who produced all things out of nothing by his Word that Word his Son was called by the name of God variously seen by the Patriarchs always heard in the Prophets at last brought by the power and Spirit of God the Father into the womb of the Virgin Mary He took flesh of Her and was born of Her and so became the Man Jesus Christ c. Here we have our Saviour's Existence antecedently to his birth of the blessed Virgin not only asserted but declared as the general Doctrine and Tradition of the Catholick Church and that less than two hundred years after our Saviour's Passion and made use of as a Prescription against an Heretick Now Marcion if he had not been well assured that Tertullian asserted no more than what was the current Doctrine of the Catholick Church might easily have baffled all Tertullian's pretence to Prescription by shewing him that all the Christians of the former Age were utterly ignorant of his pretended Articles of Faith but we never hear of any such Reply made Tho' we have no reason to doubt but that the Hereticks of those ages were as earnest to maintain their Errors as those are who tread in their footsteps in this After this in the same book Tertullian reflects upon other capital Hereticks So he tells us that Cerinthus maintained fol. 41. that Christ was only of the seed of Joseph a meer Man without any Divine Nature He tells us again that Theodotus of Byzantium blasphemed Christ for He too brought in a Doctrine quâ Christum Hominem tantummodo diceret Deum autem illum negaret Wherein he taught that Christ was a meer Man and that he was not God that He was indeed born of a Virgin thro' the Holy Ghost fol. 42. otherwise He was only a Man no better than others but as his Goodness gave him a greater authority than others If Tertullian then took Theodotus to be an Heretick on account of this Doctrine it can scarce be doubted but he 'd have taken Socinus and his Partners for the same had they liv'd in those days and I find our Socinians doing so much right to this Theodotus as fairly to reckon him among the Patrons of their opinions If we go farther with Tertullian we find him assaulting the same Heretick Marcion again and arguing God's extraordinary goodness from that great Humiliation of himself to take humane nature upon him He concludes his argument at last with this Totum denique Dei mei penes vos dedecus Adversus Mar. l. 2. f. 68. sacramentum est Humanae salutis c. All that which in your opinion is so disgraceful to the God I believe in is the Seal of our Salvation God converst with Man that Man might learn to do those things that are divine God acted suitably with Man that Man might endeavour to act agreeably to God God was found in a mean state that Man might be exalted to the utmost He that despises such a God can hardly be thought to believe in God crucified In another book against the same Marcion he argues from the antient apparitions of Angels that Christ tho' God had a true and real body We will not yield to thee says he that Angels had only a fantastick body but those bodies they assumed had a true solid humane substance this elsewhere he makes good it follows If it were not hard for Christ to exert the true sence and action of a Man in imaginary flesh it was much easier to make true and substantial flesh as he was the Author and maker of it to be the subject of true common sence and action Thy God was fain to appear in an imaginary body l. 3. fol. 72. because he was not able to produce a real one But my God who without pursuing the common course of nature could make real flesh of Earth could have invested Angels with real bodies of any kind whatsoever For with a word He made the world of nothing and shaped it into so many various bodies as we see Then he tells us Angels had flesh truly humane and connate with the time they appear'd in because Christ only himself was to be flesh of flesh that by his Birth he might purifie ours that by his Death he might free us from the slavery of Death he rising again in that flesh in which he was born only that he might die Therefore He appear'd in a true body accompanied with Angels to Abraham but not a body that was born because it was not that body which was to die In consequence of this discourse which proves our Saviour's Pre-existence to his Birth fol. 73. he urges his Adversary with that name of Immanuel or God with us from whence proving the reality of his divine he regularly infers the equal reality of his humane nature If we proceed we find the same Father publishing his Faith in the beginning of his book against Praxeas He was an Heretick so far yet from believing Christ to be a Creature or a meer Man that he asserted it was God the Father who was born of the Virgin and crucified and Dead and that He was Jesus Christ In opposition to him the Father declares As we are instructed by the Holy Ghost Adv. Prax. fol. 144. which leads us into all truth We believe one God and that the Word is the Son of that one God who was begotten of him by whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that he was sent by the Father into the Virgin and born of Her Man and God the Son of Man and the Son of God and called Jesus Christ This was then his Faith and with him Christ had a being before he was born into the World and was what we assert the Creator of all things Thus afterwards he tells us in the same book the Father is God fol. 147. the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God and dilates upon and vindicates that truth He tells us that the Father is God Almighty and most high fol. 149. and that the Son justly claims the same titles and that the Father and the Son are one God and indeed c. 21.22 fol. 219 220. the farther proof of this is the general design of that book He confirms the same Doctrine in his Apology for Christianity against the Gentiles Besides these books he wrote one particularly concerning the
their eyes What mortal Creature could have seen or discover'd him if he had come down to earth in his own original Nature or such as he is in his Divinity Therefore he took upon him the form of a Man that he might be seen and look'd upon that he might speak and teach and perform all those things for which he was sent into the World And whereas He dyed as a Man p. 37. it 's true his Humane Body was fastned upon the Cross but his Divine Nature was incapable of suffering his Body only suffer'd and that for the Salvation of those very Wretches by whose cruelty he suffer'd The same Author reflecting upon the curiosity of the Heathens because they would not believe what they did not understand asks them a great many questions about the Originals or natural causes of several things in the World which puzled them in those and confound us their posterity in these days He wonders then that they should deride Christians because they cannot explain all the Mysteries of their Religion and own their inabilities in the case when They were so much to seek in those ordinary cases Our concerns are mysteries indeed Et ideo Christus licet nobis invitis Deus Deus inquam Christus hoc enim saepe dicendum est ut infidelium dissiliat dirumpatur auditus c. Therefore Christ who is God in spite of all your opposition that Christ I say who is God for that must be repeated often to scourge the ears of Infidels speaking by God's command in the form of a Man Adv. gent. l. 2. p. 85. knowing the blindness of humane understandings and the weakness of our apprehensions forbad us to be curious or inquisitive into matters so far removed only ordering us to direct our thoughts and souls to him who is the original of all these things What advice Arnobius gives his Pagans in pursuance of this discourse would be very proper for our Socinians among whom a modest opinion of their own Natural strength and an humble supposition of God's superior Wisdom would cure that Incredulity they are at present guilty of Arnobius soon after lays down this Truth That none can save Souls but an Almighty God nor is there any who can give them long life or perpetuity but only He who is himself immortal and perpetual and uncircumscribed by any boundaries of time Yet this work of saving souls he ascribes to the Son of God Adv. Gen. l. 2. p. 87. therefore according to his sentiments the Son of God is that immortal all powerful and unbounded God To all these evidences I shall only add one of Lactantius the Scholar of the forecited Arnobius who endeavouring to reconcile the worship which the Christians paid to the Father and the Son to those adorations which they acknowledg'd only to belong to one God writes thus Instit l. 4. c. 29. p. 445. Ed. Hack. Where we say the Father is God and the Son is God we do not say they are different Gods nor do we separate them one from another for neither can the Father be divided from the Son nor the Son from the Father for the Father in a relative sence cannot be named without the Son nor the Son be begotten without the Father Since then the Father makes the Son relatively and the Son the Father they have both one Mind one Spirit one substance only the Father is as an exuberant Spring the Son as a stream flowing from it the Father is as the Sun in the firmament the Son as the rays beaming from that Sun who because he is dear and faithful to his Father can no more be separated from him than the stream from the Spring or beams from the body of the Sun for the water of the fountain is in the stream and the light of the Sun in those rays which issue from it And this is plain and pertinent enough And thus have I gone thro' the Writings of those first Fathers who are of the greatest Name and Reputation for their learning and piety in the Churches of God I have examin'd on this account only such Men as lived before the Arrian controversie was on foot so that they cannot be suspected of partiality in the case and either we must believe these Men knew very well what was the General Belief of Christians in those earliest ages or they did not if they did not understand what the Catholick Faith really was we are all strangely in the dark and the Socinians are no more capable of giving an account of the Faith of the primo-primitive Church in contradiction to what we now assert than we are in agreeance to it nay there lye all the presumptions in the World against them in the point for all the Writers extant afterwards with an almost Vniversal consent are directly against them So that unless the true Christian Faith were entirely lost about the time of the great Nicene Council the Socinians must of necessity acknowledge that the Christian Church generally believ'd that Christ was true and real God Nor can they secure themselves even among the several Heretical Clans of those ages for though they own Artemon and Paulus Samosatenus and Photinus and Arrius and Aëtius c. for great and very Orthodox Men and the sole Pillars of truth in those times yet neither did Artemon agree with Paulus nor Paulus with Photinus nor Photinus with Arrius or he with Aëtius and the same Writers call our Socinians sometimes by the name of Samosatenians sometimes of Photinians sometimes of Arrians and Semi-Arrians yet really they agree exactly with none of them as might easily be prov'd by comparing their opinions together Now if Artemon and Paulus and Photinus and the rest were such very great Men in all respects and such careful preservers of the true Apostolical Faith in those things wherein they agree with the Socinian sentiments why should not we believe they used as exact a care and were as certainly in the right in those particulars wherein they differ'd from them for doubtless such Good Men would not admit of any Errors in any points of weighty and important concern Those Men certainly must presume very much upon their own infallibility who tho' they are at odds among themselves will admit of none to be in the right but such who and where they agree with them in the most singular and paradoxical opinions But if on the other side we admit that these Fathers I have quoted on this occasion had real opportunities of knowing the General Sentiments of the Christian Church in their days and that they really did know them the result of that acknowledgment will be this either they were honest and faithful deliverers of the same Catholick Faith down to us or they were not if they were not honest and faithful in delivering down the true Faith in their Writings then holy and zealous Martyrs and devout Confessors must have proved themselves a pack of impudent
Christ nor Elias nor that Prophet but he answered positively too to their General question v. 19-23 that He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness Prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths streight as saith the Prophet Esaias Now the Baptist being so very much reverenc'd and so mightily followed as he was his answer could not but be spread about through all Judaea and the expectations of Men be the more rais'd because the person there prophesied of by Isaias was to be the forerunner of the Messias he therefore being come the other could not be far behind Besides if we interpret the Gospel of the glad tydings of Salvation brought to all mankind the Evangelists expression will be untrue For not to mention the Promise to our first Parents and those afterwards repeated to the Patriarchs and frequently declared and enlarged upon by the Prophets that of the Angel to Zacharias the Father of S. John Baptist and that of the same Angel to the blessed Virgin and they were â—â—â—â—einly tydings of great joy and the real beginnings of that which is peculiarly stiled the Gospel both these were before the very conception of our Saviour therefore He as a meer man was not or had no being in the beginning of the Gospel and doubtless the Evangelist here in the beginning of his History taking up the very expressions of Moses in the beginning of Genesis and using his very words as translated by the Septuagint supposed his Readers would take his words in the same sence as they understand those of Moses and so in the beginning in both places signifies as much as before there was any thing existent so before any thing but the eternal God himself had a being God out of nothing produced all things and so before any thing God excepted had a being the Word was therefore that Word was God because God only could exist in the beginning or before the Creation of all things and thus the Evangelist says something peculiar of Christ and what might really set him above the Baptist or blessed Angels or any other Creatures whatsoever Otherwise the Apostle according to the Socinian fancy would have taken pains to prevent an Objection never brought at such a time too as never any Man could have rais'd it for he wrote his Gospel according to all accounts about the 90th year of our Saviour toward the end of his own very long life and when the Gospel was spread in all quarters and Heresies had gotten a great footing in the Church when that Objection about John Baptist would have appeared nonsensical and ridiculous Whereas had he design'd his Master's honour or the advantage of mankind he would have made haste and have pen'd his Gospel very early when such poor objections might have appeared with some countenance But it follows In the beginning the Word was with God this seems to prove very plainly that if the Word here spoken of be indeed the Son of God he had a being before he was visible in our Nature and that above or in Heaven or in the peculiar place of the Divine presence which granted is enough to destroy all the Socinian Doctrine of Christ's being a meer Creature or a Man like one of us and no more That Christ really had such a Being antecedent to his Incarnation we have reason to believe on the authority of concurrent Texts of Scripture for so our Saviour calls himself before the cavilling Jews John 6.51 That Bread which came down from Heaven But if he came down from heaven He must first have been there and that at least some time before he told them so The Jews in general nay his own Disciples thought this a very hard saying an expression that was very hard to be understood and so it was to those who were wholly taken up with carnal thoughts our Saviour cures their amazement or incredulity with a strange intimation What and if you should see the Son of man ascend up into heaven v. 61 62. This question plainly enough asserts that he had been with God before they converst with him here on earth and this Socinus himself acknowledges for he knew not how to disengage himself from the force of this and that yet more astonishing declaration of our Saviour to Nicodemus No man hath ascended up to heaven Joh. 3.13 but He that came down from heaven even the Son of Man which is in heaven which expression according to the Socinian Rational way of exposition as they call it is meer riddle or contradiction but according to the Catholick Faith concerning the eternal generation of the Son of God is easie and intelligible to every man For if it were God that was manifest in the flesh and continued the same eternal God still He might in his divine nature always be with his Father and yet in his Humane Nature be conversant among Men at the same time But tho' Socinus and his followers sometimes own the literal truth of these expressions they cannot hold true to what they allow for one while they 'd change it's nature and make it figurative So Jesus Christ was in heaven by the divine raptures or meditations of his Soul Explic. loc S Script Op. v 1. p. 146. or he was in heaven by that perfect knowledge he had of all divine matters thus Socinus himself But he quits it at last and flyes to that wonderful discovery filium hominis verè propriè de coelo descendisse in coelo fuisse That the Son of Man was truly and properly in heaven and descended from thence before he discours'd these things with the Jews But would you know how it was as S. Paul who tho' but a meer Man was caught up into the third heavens 2 Cor. 12.2 3 4. into Paradise and heard unspeakable words which it â—s not lawful for a man to utter so the blessed Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven and there was conversant some time with God and was there as in a School taught those things he was afterwards to preach and do in the world Would you know when It was say some when he was twelve years old and his parents mist him at their return from Jerusalem and after three days found him among the Doctors Wolzog. in Jo. c. 3. v. 13. Wolzogenius supposes it during the forty days fast in the wilderness for whereas Socinus thinks it highly fit that as Moses the type was with God upon the Mount that he might there learn those Laws and Ordinances he was to deliver to the Israelites so it was very reasonable Christ the Antitype should have some such like converse with God for the same purpose in a nobler place therefore this Author to carry on the parallel the farther would pitch it on that time to which the Evangelists allot forty days because Moses was the same space of time in the Mount and this was the great Invention of Laelius Socinus
may retort their question and ask Is it possible two should be exactly of one mind and yet not both of one nature I fear they 'l find no instances of that Friends may be said to be One Husband and Wife to be One Two People to be One but are they not all of a mortal nature and consequently capable of equal thoughts and apprehensions of things if therefore God the Father and Jesus Christ be One in their sence it must be by Identity of Vnderstanding and Will and Intention which cannot be but between Persons of equal nature therefore Christ must be partaker of the Divine Nature and therefore he must be God and so what he farther adds in his discourse with the Jews is easily intelligible and a strong confirmation of what we have laid down If I do the works of my Father believe not Me but believe the Works that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me and I in him this passage if interpreted of unity of Will can be no where parallel'd and indeed it intimates a yet closer conjunction than that agreement This Union takes as much of the Subject on one part as on the other therefore if the father be every where and more peculiarly in the Son the Son is every where too and as peculiarly in the Father and therefore when Enjedine would make a shew of some parallel expressions of Christ's being in good Men and they in him he unluckily among other places hits on that of S. Paul where he speaks of Christ's dwelling in the heart by Faith Eph. 3.17 which indeed explains all the rest for Christ being a Meer Man as the Socinians say cannot any otherwise be united so to men as to be said to be in them but by Faith nor can good Men pious and holy Persons be in Christ otherwise than by Faith but sure it was never thought of that the Son of God was in his Father or his Father in him by Faith yet that must be said be it never so absurd or blasphemous if their appeal to that of our Saviour stand good That they all may be one as thou Father art in me Joh 17 21 22 23. and I in thee that they also may be one in us that they may be one even as we are one I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in one here the unity between Christians or those who should believe in Christ must be that unity of mind consisting in mutual Love and Charity that Unity must be maintain'd by the vigour of their Faith but cannot that Unity between the Father and the Son be maintain'd without the same Faith If the expressions must be explain'd all one way it will then follow That God loves those who believe in his Son as well as he loves his Son for so it follows in the forecited place That they may be made perfect in one ver 23. and that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast lov'd them as thou hast loved me but this would quite ruine all their pretences to an extraordinary reverence of the Person of Christ whom they pretend to prefer in all privileges infinitely before the Holiest of other men Indeed the Prayer of Christ imports only this He begs of his Father that Christians might be as closely united with respect to their mortal state and in proportion to it as he and his Father were in their immortal Nature and that believers should enjoy his presence as effectually to their advantage by their Faith in him as he enjoy'd the infinite glory and happiness of his Father by his Identity or Coessentiality with him and this is the greatest happiness they could wish for themselves or Christ for them The Jews then were not mistaken in the meaning of our Saviour when in saying He and his Father were one they thought he made himself God nor did they mistake him when they sought to kill him before because he said God was his Father Joh. 3.18 making himself equal with God For Christ's permission of any to worship him was a better interpretation of his words than all the glosses of the Socinians put together and as reason commonly teaches us to understand that the begetting Father and the begotten Son are both of one and the same Nature here so the same reason taught the Jews to apprehend that if Christ were the Son of God he then must be of the same nature with his Father which they who saw him in the form of a servant only thought as absurd and impossible as the Socinians do now if the Jews committed a mistake in their apprehensions of Christ's words nothing can possibly excuse either Christ himself or his Apostles from extreme unkindness since they would take no pains to rectifie a Mistake in all appearance involuntary a Care which might in probability have cured them of their unbelieving humour Let us then proceed farther to that Confession of the Apostle S. Thomas when he called our Saviour his Lord and his God Joh. 20.28 Where we may take some notice of the occasion of those words which was this Our Saviour to satisfie the world of his Resurrection and more particularly to satisfie his own Disciples in that point had appear'd to them in that body in which he suffer'd for them and all the World when the Disciples were assembled together their doors shut with a great deal of privacy for fear of the Jews there he blessed them his presence gave them an extraordinary occasion of joy the transports of which being over he blest them again breathed upon them so effectually as by that breath they received the Holy Ghost and with that that Commission and power which afterwards they were more particularly authorised to exert for the management of the Church During this gracious visit of his Master Thomas one of the twelve was absent afterwards returning to his company they joyfully assure him they had seen the Lord their words carry somewhat extraordinary in them they tell him not We have seen our Lord or thy Lord they use no limiting particle but speak positively and generally We have seen the Lord so giving him that title by which the Septuagint translate the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that it seems here given to Christ as elsewhere it is to him who by all is acknowledged to be the most high God emphatically and exclusively of all other Lords whatsoever But not to insist on this The report of his brethren to Thomas seem'd extremely incredible the Doctrine of the Resurrection tho' it was a thing which Jews had no reason to stumble at in general nor had the Disciples in particular for they had seen their Master raise Lazarus and the Son of the Widow of Naim and they had doubtless seen those holy bodies which arose from their graves upon the dreadful convulsion of nature when Jesus gave up the Ghost upon the Cross yet the
When the Arrian Controversie was on foot Alexander Bishop of Alexandria condemned it in a Synod of almost an hundred Bishops who all concluded the Doctrine of Arius a perfect Innovation not at all consistent with the Faith of the Universal Church what Arius asserted we have in Alexander's circular Epistle viz. That God was not always a Father but that there was a time wherein he was not the Father that the Word of God was not always but had its original as other Creatures out of nothing for He that is God framed or made him who had no Being out of what had no Being Therefore there was a time when he was not c. Of these Heterodox assertions of Arius Alexander in that Epistle gives us a confutation and that strong and pithy and such as being drawn from plain texts of Scripture could never have been oppos'd had not there lived in elder ages some who were able to study out as perverse glosses for positive texts as the Socinians do now a-days But that 's not all what Alexander insists upon is the disagreement of these positions with the Churches antient Faith so he first stiles the Arian Heresie a fore-runner of Anti-Christ and properly enough After this He says they were Apostates such as had fallen off from the Faith of the Church and delivered such Doctrines as were no way consonant to Scriptures Whoever heard such things before says He or who is there who hearing them now Socratis Hist Eccl. l. 1. c. 6. Edit Val. would not be amazed and stop his ears that they might not be defiled with hearing such abominable stuff That there had been many Heresies before but this the worst of all the rest and making the nearest approaches to Anti-Christianism Thus Alexander in his circular Epistle But Alexander must have been equally silly and impudent to have written in this manner to all the Bishops of the Church when his business was to satisfie them of the reasons of his proceedings against Arius and his Accomplices and when he was to countermine the stratagems and interests of Eusebius of Nicomedia a subtle and powerful adversary If the Doctrine of the Son's co-eternity and co-essentiality with his Father had not been the receiv'd and well known Doctrine of the Church for the whole design of his elaborate Epistle had been blasted had but his Brethren the Bishops or any part of them retorted upon him that Arius taught no new Doctrine but what had been held even from our Saviour's time and generally taught in all Christian Congregations but we find nothing of this kind offer'd at and Alexander himself going off the stage of the world at last with the reputation of a very wise and a very good Man Eusebius of Nicomedia then makes a considerable party for his Client Arius and supports and encourages him to resolution in his Opinions this made the Controversie grow hot and obliged Constantine the Great who desired by all means to preserve the Peace of the Church to call that famous General Council at the City of Nice in Bithynia to determine at once the Arian and the Paschal Controversie the Emperor himself in his Letter to Alexander and Arius by Hosius of Corduba seems to be very indifferent in the Controversie his indifference was enough to give life and vigour to the Eusebian or Arian party yet all would not do for notwithstanding the Emperors indifferency and Eusebius his industry and activity upon fairly debating the matter of 318. Fathers which made up that Assembly there were only Five who refused to subcribe the condemnation of Arius Eusebius of Caesarea the Church Historian seem'd to hesitate a little at first but after mature deliberation subscribed and gave an account of his Subscription and the reasons of it to his own Diocese of Caesarea wherein he gives them a Copy of that Creed himself had drawn up wherein he declared He believed in God the Father Almighty Creator of all things visible and invisible and in one Lord Jesus Christ the Word of God God of God light of light life of life the only begotten Son the first-born of every Creature begotten of God the Father before all ages by whom all things were made who for our Salvation was made flesh and convers'd among Men Thus Eusebius Socratis l. 1. c. 8. this he declares to have been always his Faith and therefore he could safely subscribe to that Form propos'd in the Council it self and so he did and he declares that He willingly subscribed those Anathema's propounded against Arius because they particularly forbad the use of such words with which Scripture was unacquainted of which several which he there instances in were in the Arian Formulary or Confession The Nicene Council it self in their Synodical Epistle declares the opinions and expressions of Arius so uncouth and blasphemous c. 9. that the Council could scarce have patience to hear them that He had yet unhappily seduced two Bishops with his impious Heresie whom they therefore had excommunicated with Arius himself The Emperor Constantine in his Epistle to the Church of Alexandria on the conclusion of the Council tells them Ibidem that Arius and his Companions had blasphemously contradicted Scriptures and our Holy Faith that when three hundred and eighteen Bishops had setled the Faith according to God's Word only Arius seduced by the Devil refused to submit to it he advises them to embrace that Faith which God himself had delivered that all should return to their dear Brethren from whom that instrument of the Devil had separated them And thus the whole Controversie came at last to rest in the determinations of entire Councils These particular persons Alexander Eusebius and Constantine had called the Arrian opinion Apostasy a seduction from the true Faith a subserviency to the Devil disagreeable to God's Word c. the Councils gave their positive Determinations and Confessions of Faith suitably oppos'd to those encroachments men in those days made upon the true Catholick Faith Thus the second Council at Antioch before mentioned gives us this Confession of Faith with respect to our Saviour We confess our Lord Jesus Christ begotten of his Father according to the Spirit before the Worlds born in the last days of the Virgin according to the flesh one Person of the Heavenly Divinity and of humane flesh united whole God even with his body but not God according to his body whole Man even with his Divinity but not according to his Divinity wholly adorable even with his body but not adorable according to his body entirely adoring God himself even with his Divinity but not adoring him according to his Divinity wholly uncreated even with his body but not uncreated according to the body wholly created even with his Divinity but not created according to his Divinity wholly consubstantial with God even with his body but not consubstantial with God in his body and wholly consubstantial with Man even with his Divinity but