Christ may be said to be worshipped,(730) namely, that as divine worship agrees only to the Godhead, and not _personis divinis praecise sumptis_, _i.e._, _sub ratione formali constitutiva personarum quae est __ relatio_: but only as these relations _identificantur_ with the essence of the Godhead; so the manhood of Christ is to be adored _non per se proecise, sed prout suppositatur à Deo_. I answer, if by _suppositatur_ they mean (as they must mean) that the manhood is assumed into the unity of the person of the Son of God (for otherwise if they mean that the manhood is made a person, they are Nestorians), that which they say cannot warrant the worshipping of the manhood with divine worship, because the manhood, even after this assumption and hypostatical union, and being considered 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.