by
us as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that a
creature, and a distinct nature from the Godhead (except we will be
Eutychians), so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with divine
worship. Dr Field layeth out a third way;(731) for whilst he admitteth the
phrase of the Lutherans, who say not only concretively that the man Christ
is omnipresent, but the humanity also, he forgeth a strange distinction.
"When we speak (saith he) of the humanity of Christ, sometimes we
understand only that human created essence of a man that was in him,
sometimes all that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence
as essence." By the same distinction would Field defend the attributing of
the other divine properties (and adorability among the rest) to the human
nature. But this distinction is no better than if a man should say, by
blackness sometimes we understand blackness, and sometimes whiteness. Who
ever confounded _abstractum_ and _concretum_, before that in Field's field
they were made to stand for one? It is the tenet of the school, that
though in God _concretum_ and _abstractum_ differ not, because _Deus_ and
_Deitas_ are the same, yet in creatures (whereof the manhood of Christ is
one) they are really differenced. For _concretum_ signifieth _aliquid
completum subsistens_, and _abstractum_ (such as humanity) signifieth(732)
something, _non ut subsistens, sed in quo aliquid est_, as whiteness doth
not signify that thing which is white, but that whereby it is white. How
comes it then that Field makes humanity, in the abstract, to have a
subsistence? Antonius Sadeel censures Turrianus(733) for saying that
_albedo cum pariete, idem est atque paries albus_: his reason is, because
_albedo dicitur __ esse, non cum pariete sed in pariete._ An abstract is
no more an abstract if it have a subsistence.

There is yet a fourth sense remaining, which is Augustine's, and theirs
who speak with him. His sentence which our opposites cite for them is,
that it is sin not to adore the flesh of Christ, howbeit very erroneously
he groundeth that which he saith upon those words of the psalm, "Worship
at his footstool," taking this footstool to be the flesh of Christ. Yet
that his meaning was better than his expression, and that he meant not
that adoration should be given to the flesh of Christ, but to the Godhead,
whose footstool the flesh is, it is plain from those words which Burges
himself citeth out of him:(734)