Person, That it may be so, or so; when necessarily it is, and must be so. For the Term [may] imports an In∣difference, or at least, a possibility to both sides of the Contradiction: So that when a Man says, That a Thing [may be thus, or thus] he does by consequence say also, [That it may not be thus, or thus.] And there∣fore to say, That the Human Nature of Christ, notwith∣standing its personal Union to the Word, may be igno∣rant of some Things, when it cannot but be ignorant of some; nay, of very many Things, is Absurd.
And in the next place also, To make the Subjection of the Human Nature to the Divine, the proper Cause of this Ignorance is false, and the Assignation of a non causa pro causâ: It being all one, as if I should say, That such an one cannot be a good Disputant, because he has a blemish in his Eye. For it is not this Subjection of it to the Divine Nature, that makes it ignorant of many Things known by that Nature; but the vast disparity that is between these Two Natures, viz. That one of them is Infinite, the other Finite, which makes it impossible for the Infi∣nite to communicate its whole Knowledge to the Finite. Forasmuch as such a Knowledge exceeds its Capacity, and cannot be received into it, so as to exist, or abide in it, any more than Omnipotence, or Omnipresence, or any other Infinite Divine Perfection can be lodged in a Fi∣nite Being.
And besides this, this very Author, in the immediate∣ly foregoing Page, had not only allowed but affirmed, That the Body (which certainly is both united to the Soul, and of a Nature Subject and Inferiour to it) was yet conscious to the Dictates and Commands of the Soul. Wherefore where Two Natures are united, the bare Sub∣jection of one to the other, is not the proper Cause, that the Nature which is Subject, is ignorant of what is