A01760:441
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…
A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded upon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our own arguments [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the answers and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Morton ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.A dispute against the English-popish ceremonies, obtruded vpon the Church of Scotland Wherein not only our ovvne argumemts [sic] against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the ansvveres and defences of our opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune ... Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted.
Leiden: printed by W. Christiaens, 1637
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
1. That though this form of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expounded, receiveth a sound sense, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase, when such a meaning is drawn out of it. For how can we by the flesh of Christ understand his Godhead? the communion of properties, admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And pHooker teacheth rightly, that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a property of the Divine nature,) are imputed to the person only, in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature, really conveyed or translated into the other.
1. That though this forme of speaking, which saith that the flesh of Christ is to be adored, being thus expoūded, receiveth a sound sence, yet the expression is very bad, and violence is done to the phrase, when such a meaning is drawne out of it. For how can we by the flesh of Christ understand his Godhead? the communion of properties, admitteth us to put the man Christ for God, but not his manhood. And pHooker teacheth rightly, that by force of union, the properties of both natures (and by consequence, adorability, which is a propertie of the Divine nature,) are imputed to the person only, in whom they are, and not what belongeth to the one nature, really conveyed or translated into the other.
- pEccl. pol. lib. 5. s. 55.
2. Yet our Kneelers who say they adore the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament, have no such Orthodox (though forced) meaning, whereby to expound themselves. For qB. Lindsey will have us in receiving the Sacrament, to bow our knees & adore the humanity of Christ, by reason of the personal union that it hath with the Godhead. Ergo, he means that we should, & may adore with Divine worship, that which is personally united with the Godhead. And what is that? not the Godhead sure: but the created nature of the manhood: (which not being God, but a creature only, can not without I dolatry be worshipped with Divine worship.) I conclude therefore, that by the flesh of Christ, which he will have to be adored in the Sacrament, he understands not the Godhead, as Augustine doth, but that created nature which is united with the Godhead.