A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not…

First, some of the ^gSchoolmen have found no other respect, wherefore the manhood of Christ can be said to be adored, except this, that the flesh of Christ is adored by him who adores the word incarnate, even as the Kings clothes are adored by him who adores the King. And thus they make the flesh of Christ to be adored only per accidens. Ego vero, saith the ^hArchbishop of Spalato, non puto à quoquam regis vestimenta quibus est indutus, adorari. And I pray, why doth he that worships the King, worship his clothes, more then any other thing which is about him, or beside him, perhaps a Hawk upon his hand, or a little dog upon his knee? There is no more but the Kings own person, set by the worshipper to have any state in the worship, and therefore no more worshipped by him. ⁱOthers devise another respect wherefore the manhood of Christ may be said to be worshipped, namely, that as Divine worship agrees only to the Godhead, and not personis Divinis precise 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 praecise, sed pro ut suppositatur à Deo. I Answer, if by suppositatur they mean, (as they must mean) that the manhood ⟨p. 65⟩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, can not warrant the worshipping of the manhood with Divine worship: because the manhood even after this assumption and hypostatical union, & being considered by us as now assumed into this personal union, is still for all that, a creature & a distinct nature from the Godhead. (except we will be Eutychians;) so that it cannot yet be said to be worshipped with Divine worship. ^kDr. Field layeth out a third way. For whiles 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 humane created essence of a man that was in him; sometimes all that, that is implied in the being of a man, as well subsistence as essence.