Whether, as the eye hath not the force of seeing in it selfe, but by reason of the vnion with the soule, and receiueth it in the vnion: so the flesh of Christ receiueth not those pro∣per things in it selfe, but hath them truely and really in that wonderfull vnion?
No, because things vnlike, and in kinde diuers, are compared together. For the eye is so ordained by nature, that it is a naturall, proper, and necessarie instrument, whereby the sensitiue life doth exercise and accomplish her facultie of seeing: and without which it cannot bring forth this faculty into effect. But the flesh of Christ is so ordained by nature, that it is a naturall, proper and neces∣sarie instrument, whereby the diuine nature alone may shewe forth his omni presence, and inuisibilitie, and so necessarie, that without it the diuine nature, in the Act it selfe, cannot be omnipre∣sent, norinuisible.
Furthermore, the flesh of Christ is not considered in it selfe, or out of the vnion: seeing that, that flesh, neither is, nor hath beene, nor euer shall be out of that vnion.
Moreouer, one nature receiueth not any contrarie thing, or di∣uers in it selfe 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, it selfe: but, it is a thing diuerse, & farre vnlike, to be circumscribed in a place, and to be euery where. Otherwise wee should say that the humane nature of Christ hath a beginning in it selfe, and hath not a beginning in the vnion: that it is created in the proprietie of it owne nature, and that it is not created in the vnion. That it is lesse then the Angels in it owne,