<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2008-2-14</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Elspeth Healey</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed text and corrected markup.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A85889">
<STC T="W">G46</STC>
<STC T="T">E64_6</STC>
<BIBNO T="umi">99860089</BIBNO>
<VID>112196</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A
DEFENCE
OF A
TREATISE
AGAINST SVPERSTI|TIOVS
<HI>IES&V;-WORSHIP,</HI>
Fal&s;ely called Scandalous, again&s;t the
truely Scandalous An&s;wer of the Par&s;on
of <HI>We&s;tmin&s;ton</HI> in <HI>Su&s;&s;ex.</HI>
Wherein al&s;o the whole Structure of his
&Agr;&Ngr;&Tgr;&Igr;&Tgr;&Egr;&Igr;&KHgr;&Igr;&Sgr;&Mgr;&Agr;, &s;o farre as it
concernes the point in controver&s;ie is over|throwne,
the truth more fully cleared, and the
<HI>iniquitie of that Super&s;tition more through|ly
detected.</HI></P>
<P>BY M. G. the Author of the former Treati&s;e, pub|li&s;hed
<HI>Anno Dom.</HI> 1642.</P>
<BIBL>1 TIM. 6. 3.</BIBL>
<Q>If any man teach otherwi&s;e, and con&s;ent not to whole&s;ome words, even
the words of our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t, and to the doctrine which is accor|ding
to godline&s;&s;e, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about que|&s;tions,
and &s;trifes of words, whereof commeth envy, &s;trife, railings, evill
&s;urmi&s;ings.</Q>
<P>Printed at <HI>London</HI> for <HI>Daniel Frere,</HI> and are to be &s;old at his Shop, at the &s;igne
of the red Bull in <HI>Little-Britaine,</HI> 1643.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>TO THE
HONOVRABLE
THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS
And Burge&s;&s;es of the Hou&s;e of Com|mons,
A&s;&s;embled in Parliament.</HEAD>
<P>_MO&s;t Noble Senators, having had a
nece&s;&s;ary occa&s;ion to publi&s;h a Trea|ti&s;e
again&s;t <HI>Super&s;titious Ie&s;u-Wor&s;hip,</HI>
I dedicated the &s;ame to a worthy
Member of your Hou&s;e. Now fin|ding
it encountred in two volumes
by Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton,</HI> who after dedica|tion
of his fir&s;t Booke to the Kings
Maje&s;tie, &s;eemes next to dedicate the &s;ame to you, I
have therefore taken boldne&s;&s;e to dedicate this my Re|ply
to you al&s;o, (being indeed an encounter with both
his Bookes) which otherwi&s;e I &s;hould not have done nor
pre&s;umed to &s;oare &s;o high. This man is very confident
in his cau&s;e, hee tels you hee hath hit the Marke&punc; at
which hee aymed, but I am confident it will ap|peare
for all his boa&s;ting, that he hath tooke his levell
with a fal&s;e deceitfull eye. Hee fir&s;t flatters you
and tels you, that your Honour advanceth truth, and
nothing more, and pre&s;ently after complaines, that the
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">lo&s;e followers of truth and peace are pur&s;ued, (hee
<PB REF="3">
meanes him&s;elfe, and his faction) and &s;o the two &s;acred
Si&s;ters are forced by humori&s;ts. Upon whom this will
reflect, I leave to your wi&s;edomes to con&s;ider. Hee is
not ignorant that you have broken the necke of this &s;u|per&s;tition,
and favour not the followers of it. Again&s;t
me he complaines to the Kings Maje&s;tie that I have cru|cified
Chri&s;t in his name, and have &s;hamefully handled
the Church: heavy charges if I cannot avoid them;
For the fir&s;t, I appeale to what I have written; for the
&s;econd, I am not guilty, unle&s;&s;e affirming it to be unlaw|full
to give a Church authority over Gods word, doe
make me to be &s;o. For this opinion I know it to be one
of the maine props, and pillars of Antichri&s;t, and it lives
and dies with him, and ble&s;&s;ed bee God both are ha&s;t|ning
to their end, but if I &s;hould hold my peace at this
time I &s;hould betray truth, which I abhorre to do. There
be many Malignant Spirits fit for a Malignant opinion
that doe yet plead for it. And &s;ome I know doe greatly
cry up this Mans booke; I have laboured to &s;trippe this
&s;uper&s;tition &s;tarke naked, that the ugly deformitie of it
may appeare, and what I have done herein I humbly
&s;ubmit my &s;elfe to your Honours grave cen&s;ure, and
humbly crave of you pardon for my boldne&s;&s;e. The
Lord watch over you for good, be a wall of fire round
about you, and the glory in the mid&s;t of you, keepe you
&s;afe under his wings from the de&s;perate plots of wicked
and unrea&s;onable men, (as, his Name be eternally prai|&s;ed,
hitherto he hath done) till <HI>Babylon</HI> be laid in the du&s;t,
and the King of glory appeare on <HI>Mount Sion</HI> in perfect
beautie; Thus prayeth</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>The unworthie&s;t of
your Servants,
MASCAL GYLES.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="to the reader">
<PB REF="3">
<HEAD>TO THE READER.</HEAD>
<P>_CHri&s;tian Reader, I received in <HI>January</HI> la&s;t this <HI>An|&s;wer</HI>
to my Treati&s;e, and I pre&s;ently addre&s;&s;ed my
&s;elfe to a <HI>Reply,</HI> which I fini&s;hed (notwith&s;tanding
other bu&s;ine&s;&s;e) in the &s;pace of a <HI>moneth,</HI> as &s;ome of
<HI>Mr. Bartons</HI> acquaintance can te&s;tifie; and pre&s;ent|ly
tooke care for the <HI>Printing,</HI> but being certified that
his Booke was little regarded but kept Shop at <HI>London</HI> diligently, and
&s;eldome went abroad, I was the more carele&s;&s;e of &s;etting it forth. But
perceiving that <HI>Mr. Bartons</HI> admirers tooke advantage by my <HI>neglect,</HI>
boa&s;ting that I was not able to make any <HI>an&s;wer;</HI> to the end that <HI>truth</HI>
may not be foyled, and <HI>errour</HI> wax proud, I have here pre&s;ented it to thy
view.</P>
<P>It is the manner of <HI>Erroneous Teachers,</HI> what they cannot doe by
<HI>Rea&s;on,</HI> to endeavour by <HI>railing</HI> to trample <HI>truth</HI> under their feete.
Thus doth this <HI>An&s;werer,</HI> then whom a more <HI>&s;coffing I&s;maelite,</HI> or a
more <HI>rayling Rab&s;hakeh,</HI> I deeme never came in Print; If to call me
<HI>Arian, Socinian, Triformian, Anabapti&s;t,</HI> and I know not what
be&s;ides, will carry the <HI>cau&s;e</HI> at his &s;ide, he will &s;urely winne the <HI>victory.</HI>
This is one of his fetches to endeavour by barbarous &s;lighting of my <HI>Per|&s;on</HI>
to di&s;credit my <HI>booke.</HI> Another of his policies is to encounter mee
with a <HI>great volume,</HI> and a great &s;hew of <HI>learning.</HI> It is po&s;&s;ible he
may thus prevaile with <HI>ignorants,</HI> that under&s;tand him not, and with
&s;uch as are carried with <HI>prejudice,</HI> but I am confident that he will ne|ver
plea&s;e any that are truely <HI>learned</HI> and <HI>pious;</HI> one <HI>Pearle</HI> with
them, though it goe in a narrow roome, will bee more precious than a
<HI>Cartload of &s;traw or &s;tubble.</HI> I que&s;tion not his learning; learning
indeed is exceeding <HI>commendable</HI> if <HI>holy men</HI> have the u&s;e of it, other|wi&s;e
<PB REF="4">
nothing more <HI>pe&s;tiferous.</HI> The mo&s;t pe&s;tilent errours have beene
broa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">ed by the abu&s;e of learning. <HI>Hee is a wi&s;e man indeed that
u&s;eth knowledge aright,</HI> Prov. 14. 1. As for his <HI>opinion,</HI> which hee
maketh a<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">An&s;wer to a Treati&s;e, p 43.</NOTE> nece&s;&s;ary point of <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>Salvation,</HI> and denounceth
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 59. and 65.</NOTE> <HI>Anathema</HI> on tho&s;e that will not practi&s;e it, as he can doe no le&s;&s;e up|on
his <HI>grounds;</HI> the onely learning to prove it is to bee had from the
<HI>Scriptures</HI> which are not for him, but again&s;t him, and which he hath
mi&s;erably perverted for his owne ends, as I &s;hall demon&s;trate. If ever
man did &s;et him&s;elfe to oppo&s;e <HI>truth,</HI> which <HI>clearely</HI> &s;hines in his <HI>face,</HI> he
hath done it: never any in this point hath &s;o farre exceeded in ab&s;urdi|tie
as he hath done, in &s;o much, that in<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Part 1. Sect. 4. and 8.</NOTE> two Sections hee hath over|throwne
his whole <HI>two books,</HI> and utterly broken the necke of his <HI>cau&s;e,</HI>
never any more to be defended, as I &s;hall prove&punc; In his Preface hee di&s;co|vers
a great deale of <HI>malignitie,</HI> for he ju&s;tifieth the <HI>opinion</HI> of tho&s;e
that ground is upon the <HI>Text</HI> by his owne <HI>Rea&s;ons,</HI> and yet make it a
thing indifferent onely warranted, but not commanded by the <HI>Text,</HI> but
ye<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter"> commanded by the <HI>Canon,</HI> which they will lay downe if the <HI>Canon</HI>
he overthrowne; my confutation of this mon&s;trous errour he hath not an|&s;wered
but by a bold impudent deniall. I would faine know of him how
a nece&s;&s;ary point of <HI>Faith</HI> and <HI>Salvation,</HI> which will be <HI>damnation</HI>
to them that will not practi&s;e it, as he &s;aith, (and all mu&s;t &s;ay &s;o too that
ground it upon the Text) can bee <HI>indifferent,</HI> and ever to bee laid
downe by the fall of a <HI>Canon:</HI> If <HI>Mr. Barton</HI> had beene ingenuous, he
would have equally conte&s;ted with them as with me, being as great <HI>an|tagoni&s;ts</HI>
to him, as to me, but &s;ee how &s;uddenly be contradicts him&s;elfe;
for though he plead for tho&s;e that hold it principally by <HI>humane con&s;ti|tution,</HI>
yet pre&s;ently after <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e makes it an errour to make the <HI>Text</HI> infe|riour
by the <HI>Canon:</HI> an irreconciliable contradiction. As touching
the order of the <HI>Hou&s;e of Commons</HI> again&s;t this ceremony, <HI>Mr. Bar|ton</HI>
denies it to be &s;o, for feare belike le&s;t he &s;hould be &s;eene to involve
them in his <HI>anathema.</HI> As for his reverend and orthodox Divine, whom
he here ba&s;ely flatters, and yet<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 52. 59. &amp;c.</NOTE> damnes him, and his opinion to hell in
his <HI>booke,</HI> becau&s;e he &s;tirres not, I will not publikely note, yet there is
nothing that I have &s;et downe, but I can prove it from his <HI>owne hand,</HI>
and from <HI>&s;ufficient able witne&s;&s;es;</HI> and I am &s;o farre to have any
cau&s;e of recanting what I have written of him, that he hath more cau&s;e
of <HI>publike rec<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ntation</HI> for &s;educing the people into <HI>&s;uper&s;tition,</HI> who
if he had beene <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">e&s;&s;e &s;uper&s;titious would have beene now more famous,
<PB REF="4">
and if he compare tho&s;e, from whom he hath lo&s;t, with tho&s;e that now cry
him up, it will adde nothing to his comfort. As for his <HI>pari&s;hioner,</HI>
whom he would not admit to the <HI>conference,</HI> he is of my opinion in the
point, and one whom he laid to my charge, that I had &s;educed, therefore
if he had beene &s;o &s;trong and I &s;o weake, it had beene for his purpo&s;e to
have admitted him, for it might have beene judged a meanes to have
revoked him from <HI>my opinion,</HI> and inclined him to <HI>his.</HI> As for <HI>Mr.
Bartons</HI> opinion, which he maintaines in his <HI>booke,</HI> but waves in
his <HI>preface,</HI> I did in the <HI>&s;inceritie</HI> of my heart preferre before the other,
for I could never perceive, (nor I thinke <HI>Mr. Barton</HI> him&s;elfe, when hee
is &s;erious) how any can maintaine this opinion from the Text, upon his
rea&s;ons, and yet ever judge it lawfull to lay it downe; therefore I did
not intend to rubbe his backe, I &s;uppo&s;e if it lacke rubbing, him&s;elfe hath
made a devi&s;e to allay the itch of it. That I had good cau&s;e to publi&s;h my
booke, I have &s;hewed <HI>&s;ufficiently.</HI> That I received a &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e rayling
an&s;wer to my <HI>foure arguments</HI> from him, I have to &s;hew from his owne
<HI>hand;</HI> for he did but onely take my <HI>propo&s;itions,</HI> contradicting my
<HI>a&s;&s;umptions,</HI> and gave me not one word of <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> notwith&s;tanding
accu&s;ing me of <HI>bla&s;phemy, contradictions, incon&s;equences,</HI> and
more then <HI>Semi-Arrian Sociniani&s;me.</HI> If this bee not unrea&s;onable
rayling I referre my &s;elfe to any to judge: As for his an&s;wer, neere the one
halfe is impertinent &s;tuffe, and meere barbarous <HI>&s;currilitie,</HI> which I
have pa&s;&s;ed by, and have re&s;olved not to returne reviling for reviling.
But if my <HI>&s;pirit</HI> be moved in behalfe of tho&s;e three <HI>worthies,</HI> who&s;e in|nocent
&s;ufferings he &s;coffes at Page 2. I tru&s;t the <HI>Reader</HI> will not blame
me. There be &s;undry things in my booke which are mo&s;t <HI>materiall,</HI> that
he hath not &s;o much as touched with one of his <HI>fingers;</HI> for my part I
have laboured in this my Reply for brevitie to the utmo&s;t of my power, yet
I know not any thing fit to be an&s;wered that I have pa&s;&s;ed by. Tho&s;e his
conceited &s;trong holds in his <GAP DESC="foreign">. and &s;ome other things urged, though
when fir&s;t mentioned, they are not an&s;wered in every place, yet they are
an&s;wered in other places more convenient as thou &s;halt finde. Tho&s;e
tales which he layes to my charge that I &s;hould &s;peake, are all fal&s;e,
where I an&s;wer nothing. If there bee any, that are &s;o wedded to the
learned opinion of <HI>Ma&s;ter Barton,</HI> that they affect it and owne it,
and will not be per&s;waded to the contrary, for my part I leave them to
all the comfort that this opinion will afford them; but withall, I wi&s;h
them to put it in <HI>practi&s;e,</HI> for I know &s;ome that hugge his <HI>booke</HI> that
<PB REF="5">
doe not ob&s;erve his <HI>rule,</HI> the&s;e &s;hew them&s;elves horrible <HI>di&s;&s;emblers</HI> be|fore
<HI>God</HI> and <HI>Man:</HI> I mu&s;t tell them, if they doe not practi&s;e it, wee bee
to them. Never any &s;erved an harder ma&s;ter then <HI>Ma&s;ter Barton,</HI> if
he be not obeyed, his correction is no le&s;&s;e then eternall damnation. Thus,
Chri&s;tian Reader I leave thee to the peru&s;all of this Reply.</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Thine in the Lord Je&s;us,
MASCALL GYLES.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="note">
<P>Chri&s;tian Reader, the Title following in the en&s;uing
Page was &s;et downe without my direction: My Title
is this.</P>
<Q>A Defen&s;e of a Treati&s;e again&s;t Super&s;titious Je&s;u-Wor&s;hip. PART. I.</Q>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 N="1" TYPE="part">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>A Reply to a Counter-&s;carfe,
Written by Ma&s;ter Barton; con|cerning
bowing at the Name
of IESVS, Anno 1642.</HEAD>
<P>_MA&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> in the latter part of his
<GAP DESC="foreign"> reades a Lecture of humilitie,
but in his <HI>Epi&s;tle Dedicatory,</HI> before his
an&s;wer, he beginneth with a proud brag,
wherein he &s;hewes how well hee puts in
practi&s;e his owne doctrine. He &s;aith he
an&s;wered my Treati&s;e in 10. dayes of <HI>Au|gu&s;t</HI>
la&s;t: Now this is to let the world un|der&s;tand,
that many of my bookes were
in the Country on the 19. of <HI>July,</HI> 1642. and I can prove that
he had one of them among&s;t the fir&s;t, and it cannot be thought
that he would be idle altogether til the bu&s;ie time of <HI>Augu&s;t;</HI> but
I wonder that he would take &s;o much time about it, &s;eeing hee
boa&s;ted after he had &s;ent me that &s;currilous an&s;wer to my <HI>foure
Arguments</HI> in <HI>Aprill</HI> before, that he had overthrowne my whole
Treati&s;e in halfe an houre: a &s;trange dull fit came upon him, as
it &s;eemes to take but halfe an houre then, but now ten dayes.
Now to &s;hew the impudency of this bragge, I will declare the
truth of all: Almo&s;t two yeares agone hee being at my hou&s;e,
I read into him my whole opening of the Text. In the <HI>Spring,</HI>
1642. meeting him by occa&s;ion in the pre&s;ence of a <HI>Gentleman,</HI>
and others, he &s;eemed to be very faire with me, and meekely re|que&s;ted
<PB N="2" REF="6">
me to &s;end him &s;ome of my Arguments, affirming that if
he &s;aw weight in them that hee would yeeld, promi&s;ing that
when he had peru&s;ed them he would returne them againe; and
&s;end me the grounds of his <HI>opinion.</HI> I therefore &s;ent him tho&s;e
foure arguments above &s;pecified, at large with their proofes,
which hee hitherto keepeth by him, and would not returne
them, neither would hee &s;end his grounds according to pro|mi&s;e:
Is this equity? nay is it hone&s;ty? but it is &s;uch hone&s;ty
as well becommeth Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton.</HI></P>
<P>Be&s;ides, almo&s;t two yeares agoe I &s;ent him another Argument.
Fir&s;t and la&s;t in conference, and otherwi&s;e, I know not one Ar|gument
but he hath been acquainted with: and he knew as long
agoe as <HI>September</HI> 1641. that I would &s;et out my booke; and
yet this man hath the face to &s;ay that hee an&s;wered my whole
booke in ten dayes. To adde to this, in one pa&s;&s;age of his
booke he layes to my charge that my booke is a <HI>mon&s;ter</HI> of three
yeares hatching;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 50.</NOTE> great oddes, his brood but ten dayes in hatch|ing,
mine three yeares; But this is the truth, finding this gro&s;&s;e
&s;uper&s;tition to take &s;o much in the Countie by tho&s;e <HI>&s;uper&s;titi|ous
teachers,</HI> and &s;ome ignorants in my owne pari&s;h to bee &s;tag|gard
with it, I &s;omething more then three yeares agoe delivered
as much again&s;t it as amounted to the quantitie of an houre and
a halfe at two &s;everall <HI>Sermons,</HI> and then left it, onely being
ready to encounter with any of that opinion, as occa&s;ion
&s;hould &s;erve, and never thought to come in print, till I had re|ceived
abu&s;es by the&s;e men, and &s;o with as much convenient
&s;peed as other bu&s;ine&s;&s;es would give mee leave, I wrote it out
faire, making it ready for the pre&s;&s;e; and &s;o I &s;ent it up to a
friend at <HI>London,</HI> where it lay almo&s;t halfe a yeare before it
came into the <HI>Pre&s;&s;e,</HI> till &s;uch time as I was carefull to looke af|ter
it my &s;elfe. If my booke had beene made ten yeares agone,
what then? I may put it out when I plea&s;e, it is ra&s;hne&s;&s;e and
madne&s;&s;e to affirme that becau&s;e my booke came out three yeares
after I fir&s;t &s;tudied the point, that therefore I was &s;o long in
&s;tudying it; by this rule Ma&s;ter <HI>Partons</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> is a mon&s;ter
as well as my booke&punc; for I can prove that three yeares agone,
and better, he beganne to preach for his opinion, and a &s;pe|ciall
friend of his told me before my book was in the pre&s;&s;e, that
he had a booke of this Que&s;tion ready for the Pre&s;&s;e, which
<PB N="3" REF="6">
without doubt was this his <GAP DESC="foreign">. This I thought good
to make knowne, le&s;t the reader &s;hould be deceived in a pa&s;&s;age
of his in the Title of the &s;aid booke, where he &s;aith it was pre|pared
1642. for if by <HI>preparing</HI> he meane <HI>inventing</HI> or <HI>&s;tudying,</HI> hee
wrongs his <HI>reader</HI> and his owne con&s;cience, &s;eeing hee
preached for his opinion three yeares before. Thus much in an|&s;wer
to his proud bragge. This Sophi&s;ter (for &s;o I cannot
chu&s;e but call him; for all his an&s;wers are but meer &s;ophi&s;trie)
is offended at the title of my booke, becau&s;e I call bowing at
the name Je&s;us &s;uper&s;tition. One rea&s;on is, becau&s;e, &s;aith hee,
Je&s;us is the Genitive ca&s;e, and cannot be nominall in any ca&s;e;
which exception &s;hall be an&s;wered hereafter. And &s;econdly, be|cau&s;e
the tearme of &s;uper&s;tition is an Enthu&s;ia&s;me (as he calleth
it) of Ma&s;ter <HI>Prynne</HI> and Ma&s;ter <HI>Burton,</HI> whom in &s;corne he calls
<HI>Confe&s;&s;or Prynne</HI> and <HI>Father Burton,</HI> fathered on him and his fel|lowes
by me, whom he calls their <HI>Pupill.</HI> But it was called <HI>&s;u|per&s;tition</HI>
by &s;undry learned, long before they or my &s;elfe wrote
in the <HI>Que&s;tion:</HI> therefore it doth not appeare to be fir&s;t brought
up by tho&s;e worthy men, or if it were, I have no rea&s;on to re|cant
for &s;aying &s;o too, unle&s;&s;e he can di&s;prove the truth of it:
and whereas he upbraides them with their forfeitures, and ask|eth
me whether I will undergoe the &s;ame; I an&s;wer, hee is a
malicious impudent per&s;on to ca&s;t the &s;ufferings of tho&s;e excel|lent
men, with &s;corne into their teeth, in compari&s;on of whom
for true &s;olid learning, piety and &s;incerity, he is not worthy of
that honour that <HI>Job</HI> refu&s;ed to give to the fathers of tho&s;e chil|dren
that mocked him;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Job 6. 30. 1. 2.</NOTE> but him&s;elfe al&s;o hath undergone a for|feiture,
which if it had beene in as good a quarrell as theirs, it
would have beene more for his comfort, but he &s;peakes out, he
can be content to helpe mee to their forfeiture, if it lay in his
power, becau&s;e he &s;aith, that contrary to my <HI>knowledge</HI> (his
owne &s;aying, he &s;hould have &s;aid) I accu&s;e him of <HI>&s;yllabicall wor|&s;hip,</HI>
having often (but it was never but once as I remember) in
the pre&s;ence of <HI>Divines</HI> and <HI>Gentlemen</HI> affirmed the contrary: In
an&s;wer to which, I doubt not but this <HI>malecontent</HI> will doe what
he can to the uttermo&s;t of his power, to the extremitie of forfei|ture,
his malice is &s;o <HI>implacable</HI> not only again&s;t me, but again&s;t
all &s;uch as hate his cour&s;es; but he cannot tell what forefeiture he
him&s;elfe may undergoe for his mi&s;demeanours if once a good
<PB N="4" REF="7">
peace be &s;etled, and I am confident that they that are through|ly
acquainted with Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton,</HI> will not accu&s;e me for the
crime of incredulitie in not beleeving him on his bare word; but
whether I have wrongfully charged him with &s;yllabicall wor|&s;hip,
the following treati&s;e will declare.</P>
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECTION I.</HEAD>
<P>VVHerein I demon&s;trate,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Name above every Name what it is not.</NOTE> fir&s;t, what <HI>Name above every
Name</HI> cannot be; and &s;econdly what it is: and fir&s;t I &s;ay
it is not to be under&s;tood of a bare proper name which makes
M^r. <HI>Barton</HI> very &s;nuffe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Who&s;e di&s;ea&s;e I pray tended to <GAP DESC="foreign"> that was among the Cavaliers, in habite and po&s;ture of war as a Cavalier?</NOTE> and tels me that my di&s;ea&s;e is <HI>Melancho|lia,</HI>
&amp; tends to <GAP DESC="foreign">, and layes to my charge <HI>ignorantia Elenchi,</HI>
in &s;aying that they doe not deve&s;t the name above every name
to <HI>bare letters,</HI> and <HI>&s;yllables,</HI> and that they doe not take the <HI>name</HI>
without the <HI>&s;en&s;e:</HI> but what if him&s;elfe doe utterly mi&s;take the
que&s;tion? for by a bare name I intend not any name &s;imply
debarred of &s;en&s;e, but fir&s;t a proper name con&s;idered <HI>Seor&s;im</HI> and
<HI>apart</HI> by it &s;elfe. And &s;econdly &s;uch a name that is not an&s;we|rable
in a true relative &s;en&s;e to names &s;ubjected to it. My fir&s;t
rea&s;on, Sir, you needed not to have been offended with, for I ex|cept
it as you &s;ee from a rea&s;on <HI>infallible,</HI> but take it as <HI>probable,</HI>
and as an <HI>introduction</HI> to tho&s;e rea&s;ons that are more &s;ure. My
&s;econd and third Rea&s;ons taken from the analogie of the <HI>Scrip|tures</HI>
you take to be nothing, and include them in the former,
but you are mi&s;taken, and where can you finde the&s;e phra&s;es,
<HI>A great Name,</HI> or <HI>Name above another,</HI> taken from a proper namein
this &s;en&s;e in any part of <HI>Scripture?</HI> My fourth rea&s;on you frivo|lou&s;ly
&s;light, you deny that if <HI>the Name above every Name</HI> be a pro|per
Name, the <HI>&s;ubjected Names</HI> mu&s;t be proper Names al&s;o; this is
to deny evident plaine rea&s;on, for is there not a manife&s;t <HI>relation</HI>
betweene a <HI>proper Name,</HI> and <HI>proper Names?</HI> But you &s;ay, if I
meane a Name in the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> of it, the Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is above every
Name what&s;oever, yea above the <HI>Name of God,</HI> which is a feare|full
a&s;&s;ertion, for if you meane the <HI>Name of God</HI> con&s;idered by it
&s;elfe as a name, then becau&s;e it is plaine by the Text that every
Name below this highe&s;t Name mu&s;t bow knees to that Name,
then it will follow, that be&s;ides the Names of the Creatures the
<PB N="5" REF="7">
<HI>Name of God</HI> mu&s;t bow to the <HI>Name Je&s;us:</HI> this will bee laid to
your charge, avoyd it if you can. But if you will not have the
Name Je&s;us referred to names, then it mu&s;t bee referred to the
powers of things &s;ubjected, then it will follow, that excepting
not <HI>God, God</HI> him&s;elfe mu&s;t bow to the <HI>Name Je&s;us:</HI> impute not
bla&s;phemy to mee, it is direct bla&s;phemie in you by your own
doctrine, and becau&s;e you &s;ee it lies upon you, you rage and
raile. Now then &s;eeing Name above every Name cannot be un|der&s;tood
of a bare proper Name in the &s;en&s;e above &s;poken, there|fore
it followes that it cannot be under&s;tood of the Name Je|&s;us,
becau&s;e the name in the Text is a name of power and au|thoritie,
as that parallel place proves it, <HI>Matth.</HI> 28. 18. <GAP DESC="foreign">,
<HI>all power is given me.</HI> So Ma&s;ter <HI>Calvin</HI> on that place, <Q><HI>Quo etiam
pertinet illud Pauli, to which pertaines that of Paul, hee emptied
him&s;elfe, wherefore God exalted him, and gave him a name, which is
above every name.</HI></Q> Again, the &s;cope of the name proves it, for
Subjection mu&s;t be given in this name &s;ignified by bowing the
knee, Authority &amp; &s;ubjection are relatives, there is no <HI>Subjection</HI>
due where there is no <HI>Power</HI> or <HI>Authority.</HI> Now the Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is
a name of <HI>Salvation,</HI> and not a name properly denoting <HI>Com|mand</HI>
and <HI>Authority.</HI></P>
<P>Secondly, though it &s;hould be granted that the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> is
a name of <HI>Authority,</HI> yet it is not a name of the <HI>highe&s;t Authority,</HI>
Doctor <HI>Page</HI> your own witne&s;&s;e &s;hall be Judge, whom you judge
unreproveable in his judgement,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 197.</NOTE> who in his an&s;wer to Ma&s;ter
<HI>Prynnes</HI> Reply to <HI>Widdowes;</HI> Ma&s;ter <HI>Prynne</HI> having brought
many places to prove that <HI>the name Chri&s;t denominates Chri&s;ts Sa|craments,
his Church, his Apo&s;tles, his Mini&s;ters, his Saints, his King|dome;
and therefore a Name e&s;pecially venerable among&s;t Chri&s;tians,</HI>
doth acknowledge that the name <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> may be of greater <HI>Au|thoritie</HI>
and <HI>dignitie</HI> then the Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> though not of greater
<HI>&s;avour</HI> and <HI>mercy.</HI> Now let Doctor <HI>Page</HI> with all his learning,
and Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> with all his Sophi&s;trie reconcile this if they
can, how the Name Je&s;us can be above every name, yet it be
po&s;&s;ible that any other name may be of greater <HI>dignitie</HI> and
<HI>authority</HI> than it, &s;eeing Name in the Text doth expre&s;ly de|note
<HI>dignitie</HI> and <HI>authoritie.</HI></P>
<P>Thirdly, thought it &s;hould be granted that the Name Je&s;us is
of <HI>highe&s;t authority</HI> in regard of the <HI>Church</HI> only, yet in this re&s;pect
neither can it be the name above every name in the Text, for
<PB N="6" REF="8">
this name is of highe&s;t authority in regard of the whole creati|on,
heaven and earth, and therefore without controver&s;ie in re|&s;pect
of Angels, Devils, and all men what&s;oever, according to
the forecited place, <HI>Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in heaven
and earth.</HI> Chri&s;t in this name commands the whole heaven and
earth. Now the Name Je&s;us cannot command the <HI>Angels,</HI> be|cau&s;e
to them he is not Je&s;us by redemption, as the name &s;igni|fies;
much le&s;&s;e can it command the <HI>Devills;</HI> and it cannot com|mand
the <HI>whole earth,</HI> for many <HI>nations</HI> have no knowledge of
his written Law, much le&s;&s;e the <HI>Go&s;pell;</HI> therefore neither doth
he command them as <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> neither can any of the&s;e &s;ubmit
and bow to him as <HI>Je&s;us.</HI> Therefore here the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> &s;tan|deth
as a bare name to Angels, devills, reprobates, and many na|tions
of the earth. And let not Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> be angry if I af|firme
that he and his fellowes adore the <HI>bare Name Je&s;us.</HI> For
fir&s;t under&s;tanding the Text of the Name Je&s;us they appoint the
bowing to the <HI>Name</HI> onely,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sect. 5.</NOTE> and not to the <HI>per&s;on,</HI> as I have pro|ved,
and they cannot intend it to the per&s;on except they adde to
the Text. Secondly, when the per&s;on of our Saviour is as
fully denominated under his other titles, as Je&s;us, they move
not, but onely at the name Je&s;us. Thirdly, when they &s;tand
or &s;it to heare the <HI>Word,</HI> a ge&s;ture allowable by the Word, as
&s;oone as the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> is mentioned they immediatly bow,
and when oftentimes the great mercy of God in &s;aving us is
largely and copiou&s;ly laid open in a Sermon, or when in rea|ding
of a Chapter many excellent &s;entences are related, wherein
the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> of our <HI>&s;alvation</HI> is more clearely notified to our under|&s;tanding
then by the <HI>Name Je&s;us,</HI> yet there is no &s;tirre, no ado|ration,
but onely at the Name Je&s;us, no not at the title <HI>Saviour,</HI>
which is the very <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> of the name Je&s;us, and better under&s;tood
of all. Fourthly, it is ordinary with the&s;e men, when they
be upon their knees at the prayers to <HI>God</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> then to
make a <HI>&s;peciall incurvation</HI> of the body at the &s;ound of Je&s;us, a
plaine argument that the&s;e men are guilty of <HI>Syllabicall wor&s;hip,</HI>
and wor&s;hip the <HI>bare name</HI> more then <HI>God</HI> or <HI>Chri&s;t him&s;elfe.</HI> That
I alone doe not &s;o charge them, Ma&s;ter<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">On Phil 2. 9.</NOTE> <HI>Calvin</HI> and Ma&s;ter<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Expo&s;i|tion of the Creede.</NOTE> <HI>Ba|bington</HI>
do both of them lay <HI>&s;yllable wor&s;hip</HI> to their charge. There|fore
I returne Ma&s;ter <HI>Bartons</HI> &s;coffes upon him&s;elfe, and I would
faine &s;ee, how not poore &s;illy <HI>flies,</HI> but &s;uch <HI>mighty Elephants,</HI> as
<PB N="7" REF="8">
this <HI>Saphi&s;ter</HI> is, can e&s;cape out of the&s;e nets: and therefore his
<HI>Crambe</HI> &s;o often <HI>Cocta</HI> ca&s;t upon me is more then ridiculous,
<HI>viz. Name above every name as a bare name cannot be under&s;tood of
the Name Je&s;us, as a bare name,</HI> and this &s;hall &s;erve to an&s;wer it
every where when it is brought. To the &s;econd part, <HI>viz.</HI> If it
&s;hould be under&s;tood of a proper name, yet may it not bee un|der&s;tood
of the Name Je&s;us; my fir&s;t rea&s;on is, becau&s;e the word
<HI>Je&s;us</HI> doth no where denote the name Je&s;us, but onely <HI>Matth.</HI> 1.
21. and <HI>Luke</HI> 2. 21. where it mu&s;t needs &s;o &s;ignifie; but hee will
have my meaning to be this, that the word Je&s;us doth not &s;ig|nifie
the word Je&s;us, which is a <HI>Crotchet</HI> of his owne devi&s;ing:
I &s;ay the word Je&s;us doth not &s;ignifie the name, not the word,
your in&s;tance of <GAP DESC="foreign"> to &s;ignifie <HI>Jehovah</HI> in the old Te&s;ta|ment
is nothing to the purpo&s;e; for I &s;peake here of Je&s;us; nei|ther
is the <HI>Parallel</HI> brought right, for you &s;hould have produ|ced
where the word <HI>Jehovah</HI> is taken for the <HI>Name Jehovah,</HI> and
if you did, it is be&s;ides the Que&s;tion, which is onely there con|cerning
the <HI>Name Je&s;us.</HI> But you can prove, you &s;ay, that
name is often u&s;ed for <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> and in&s;tance in one place, which if
true, it is not for your turne, for you mu&s;t prove that Je&s;us is
taken for the Name Je&s;us, but that place of <HI>Acts</HI> 5. 41. is not for
you; doth the Apo&s;tle &s;peake there <HI>barely</HI> of the <HI>name</HI> or <HI>appel|lation
Je&s;us?</HI> you thought belike you &s;hould never be an&s;wered;
the&s;e be the words, <HI>they rejoyced that they were counted worthy to &s;uf|fer
rebuke for his name:</HI> what is <HI>name</HI> taken for the <HI>name Je&s;us</HI> here
properly? did the Appellation Je&s;us offend the <HI>Apo&s;tles</HI> enemies?
did not they call him <HI>Je&s;us</HI> as well as the <HI>Apo&s;tles.</HI> This is that
offended them, for preaching that <HI>Je&s;us:</HI> not the <HI>name</HI> but <HI>per&s;on</HI>
was the <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> no quarrell at all about the <HI>name Je&s;us:</HI> Would
it be thought that one that profe&s;&s;eth him&s;elfe &s;uch a Scholler
as Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> is &s;hould run into &s;uch an ab&s;urditie? To my
&s;econd rea&s;on, <HI>viz.</HI> that <GAP DESC="foreign"> is never taken for the name
Je&s;us, you object that I take the <HI>word</HI> without the <HI>&s;en&s;e;</HI> but Sir
you mu&s;t not take the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> without the <HI>name:</HI> the que&s;tion is
about the <HI>name Je&s;us</HI> as a <HI>name,</HI> and though you take the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI>
with it, yet you cannot bring any Scripture for this interpre|tation:
but becau&s;e you cannot an&s;wer this rea&s;on, therefore you
put it off with a &s;coffe. In the next place you affirme that in
this phra&s;e <GAP DESC="foreign"> is the <HI>genitive ca&s;e,</HI> and not the
<PB N="8" REF="9">
<HI>dative,</HI> and &s;o you will have it read not in or at the name Je&s;us;
but name of Je&s;us: therefore it plea&s;eth you <HI>Sect. 5. Page</HI> 36. in
your learned &s;currilous language to call me a Jugler, a Thiefe,
a beguiler of the people, and that I have put the theft impu|dently
on the <HI>Church,</HI> for turning the Genitive ca&s;e into the
ca&s;e of the Nonne; but what Sir, if I prove you to be the Jugler,
and the thiefe? for if you will have it read in or at the name of
Je&s;us, then I agree with you; you know I am content to un|der&s;tand
it &s;o too; but here now will be a great doubt, what is
meant by the <HI>Name</HI> of <HI>Je&s;us.</HI> If by the <HI>word Je&s;us</HI> you doe under|&s;tand
the <HI>per&s;on,</HI> Name is generall, and many &s;en&s;es may be made,
then my &s;en&s;e of the <HI>Name of power and glory</HI> will come in <HI>fairely,</HI>
then any other name of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> may come in to bee the name as
well as <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> as <HI>Christ, Emmanuel, Mediatour,</HI> which are all
names of Je&s;us, as well as Je&s;us&punc; yea in better congruity of
&s;peech, the&s;e may be called name of Je&s;us, then the name Je&s;us,
But if by the <HI>word Je&s;us</HI> you meane the <HI>name Je&s;us,</HI> and yet will
not have it be in <HI>appo&s;ition</HI> with <GAP DESC="foreign">, then the &s;en&s;e will bee
thus, <HI>at the name of the name Je&s;us,</HI> which will be very &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e;
therefore by the&s;e words, <HI>in the name of Je&s;us</HI> you mu&s;t read <HI>name
Je&s;us,</HI> or el&s;e no body under&s;tands you: yea your owne friends
read it &s;o, as<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Learne to live, Chap. 14. Pag. 217.</NOTE> <HI>Sutton;</HI> yea you quote<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. pag. 36.</NOTE> <HI>Origen</HI> to call it &s;o, yea
<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. pag. 22.</NOTE> you your &s;elfe doe call it &s;o: let the world judge now, who is
the deceiver or Jugler, you or I.</P>
<P>To my third rea&s;on that Je&s;us was a communicable name,
therefore not the name above every name, your an&s;wer is ex|treamely
&s;currilous. Fir&s;t you &s;ay, I am neare to Athei&s;me for
que&s;tioning &s;uch learned men as Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes</HI> and Doctor
<HI>Page,</HI> but how you can make it good unle&s;&s;e you put them in the
place of God I know not. I hope Sir, truth is not confined to
a <HI>Bi&s;hops Rotchet</HI> nor a <HI>Doctors Chaire,</HI> but you by your owne
rea&s;on are as neare Athei&s;me as my &s;elfe for que&s;tioning <HI>Bellar|mine</HI>
with whom you cannot compare for <HI>learning.</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">An<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2+ letters">. p. 3.</NOTE> This I &s;ay,
that whereas your two friends affirme that &s;undry men were
called <HI>Chri&s;ts,</HI> therefore Chri&s;t is a communicable name, I an|&s;wered:
The&s;e were no more called <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> then others were
called <HI>Saviours, Nehe.</HI> 9. 27. And though you reply, that none of
the&s;e were called <HI>Saviours</HI> as <HI>Je&s;us</HI> was a <HI>Saviour;</HI> &s;o I &s;ay that
none of the&s;e were called <HI>Chri&s;ts</HI> as <HI>Je&s;us</HI> was <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> So here I
<PB N="9" REF="9">
have taken off your <HI>two friends,</HI> and <HI>your &s;elfe,</HI> and in this wee
areeven. But here I have the better of you. Some were called
<HI>Je&s;us</HI> either by <HI>&s;peciall providence,</HI> or <HI>generall allowance,</HI> as by an
<HI>ordinary Name</HI> to be called by, but none might be called <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>
in an ordinary Name to be called by, without <HI>horrible bla&s;phemy.</HI>
And whereas you deny this, and &s;eeme to affirme that &s;ome are
called Chri&s;ts without offence, by an ordinary Name to be cal|led
by, as you in&s;tance in <HI>Chri&s;topher</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> it is ridicu|lous;
what, is <HI>Chri&s;topher Chri&s;t?</HI> it is no more Chri&s;t, then <HI>Mary</HI>
the mother of our Lord is the Lord him&s;elfe: and if you think
you are called <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> when called <HI>Chri&s;tian,</HI> I tell you plainely
you are a very <HI>Antichri&s;t.</HI> My quotation of <HI>&V;r&s;in</HI> is <HI>ad idem,</HI> for
I cite him onely to this end, to &s;hew that <HI>Jo&s;huah</HI> had his
name given him by a &s;peciall providence; and if <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> gave him
the name, is doth the more confirme it.</P>
<P>To my fourth rea&s;on, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> was given
to <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the <HI>beginning of his humiliation;</HI> therefore it cannot
be the <HI>Name above every Name</HI> in the Text, which was given him
at his <HI>exaltation;</HI> you an&s;wer nothing, but referre mee to your
<GAP DESC="foreign">, Pag. 13, 14, 15. and what doe I finde there? that two
or three doe &s;ay that <HI>Chri&s;ts Name</HI> was manife&s;ted after the <HI>re|&s;urrection,</HI>
but not any to apply it to the Name Je&s;us. This
Name needeth no manife&s;tation, becau&s;e hee was all along &s;o
called; as God indeed his Name was manife&s;ted, but as man
the Name was then given him; <HI>Name</HI> here is the highe&s;t glorifi|cation
of the <HI>humane nature</HI> as generally the be&s;t expo&s;itors doe
under&s;tand the Text.</P>
<P>But if you can produce any place to prove that <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth
&s;ignifie to manife&s;t or declare, I will the &s;ooner incline to your
opinion; and according to your owne rea&s;on, a literall-&s;en&s;e,
admitting no ab&s;urditie, and expre&s;&s;ing a cleare truth, is to bee
preferred before a my&s;ticall. Now you &s;coffing at our <HI>figurative
interpretation</HI> of &s;ome clau&s;es, though warranted by <HI>Scripture,</HI>
doe make a <HI>my&s;ticall &s;en&s;e</HI> here no where warranted. Now that
<HI>give</HI> is to be taken here <HI>properly,</HI> the <HI>Analogie</HI> of the <HI>Text,</HI> and
the <HI>order</HI> of the words will evidence; for the Name given here
is Gods free rewarding of Chri&s;t after his obedience &amp; &s;ufferings
as is plaine by the Text; which if it were onely by the <HI>mani|fe&s;tation</HI>
of his former <HI>Name,</HI> it is not &s;o <HI>proper,</HI> as by giving him
<PB N="10" REF="10">
that <HI>glory</HI> which he had not before; Secondly, the words are
<GAP DESC="foreign">, there being no article before
<GAP DESC="foreign"> it is plaine it hath no relation to any proper Name then
called by. Againe it being <GAP DESC="foreign"> not <GAP DESC="foreign">, hee gave a name to
him, not his Name, it is evident it is a gift not before had.
I doe not deny it to be under&s;tood of &s;ome Name or Names that
Chri&s;t as God had before, as God <HI>Jehovah,</HI> Sonne of God, for
&s;o they may after a &s;ort be called a gift, for the&s;e names being
laid downe in his <HI>humiliation, re&s;toring</HI> is a kinde of <HI>giving;</HI> much
more as the <HI>glory</HI> of the&s;e <HI>Names</HI> are given to the <HI>humane nature.</HI>
For whereas he was before called by the&s;e glorious names, as
<HI>God</HI> onely, now he is &s;o called as <HI>God,</HI> and <HI>Man.</HI> And there|fore
though <HI>Zanchius</HI> doe under&s;tand it of the name of God ma|nife&s;ted,<NOTE PLACE="marg">On Phil. 2. 9. 10.</NOTE>
yet he affirmes it to be a reall gift, <HI>viz.</HI> as the humane
nature is honoured thereby; but in no &s;en&s;e can it be under&s;tood
of the declaration of the Name Je&s;us, which Name was never
denied him: therefore &s;aith <HI>Zanchius, alii pro nomine Je&s;u, &s;ed mi|nus
comm<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">de; others under&s;tand it, &s;aith he, for the name Je&s;us, but
le&s;&s;e fitly,</HI> becau&s;e before the re&s;urrection he was called Je&s;us by
all. To have the name Je&s;us declared after the re&s;urrection is
not properly an advancement of Chri&s;t<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Your &s;elfe &s;ay, that the declaration of a thing is not more wor|thy then the thing, <HI>Part. 2. Sect.</HI> 4.</NOTE>. Therefore is it not
the name above every Name. If you Mr. <HI>Barton,</HI> &s;hould pre&s;ent one
of your <HI>Bookes</HI> to your <HI>Godfather,</HI> and he to <HI>gratifie you,</HI> &s;hould
give to you your <HI>Name Thomas,</HI> or declare your name <HI>Thomas,</HI>
which he gave you before, I thinke you would not thinke your
&s;elfe to receive much honour by &s;uch a gift or declaration. Cer|tainly
if the Name above every Name bee but the <HI>declaration</HI> of
the name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> he &s;hould have more given him at his <HI>Circumci|&s;ion</HI>
then at his <HI>exaltation;</HI> for a <HI>gift</HI> is more then the <HI>declaration</HI> of
it. If any thing were now added to the name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> then was not
his name <HI>perfect</HI> at the fir&s;t; and you may as well &s;ay that <HI>Christ</HI>
had not a perfect <HI>office,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> pag. 15.</NOTE> or that he did not offer up a <HI>perfect &s;a|crifice,</HI>
as that the Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> was not <HI>perfect.</HI> You &s;ay your
&s;elfe, as the <HI>Names</HI> of things are, &s;o &s;hould their <HI>vertues</HI> be e&s;tee|med:
I pray, Sir, wherein doth the <HI>eminencie</HI> of the Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI>
appeare after the <HI>re&s;urrection?</HI> in all your <HI>treati&s;e</HI> I doe not &s;ee
but you make it to con&s;i&s;t in this, that it &s;ignifieth a <HI>Saviour,</HI>
but &s;o it &s;ignified before, and &s;o it &s;ignified after he had wrought
<HI>&s;alvation</HI> for us by his <HI>death;</HI> to what purpo&s;e then was the &s;en&s;e
<PB N="11" REF="10">
of the name given him, when the nature of the name, e&s;pecially
after the worke was fini&s;hed, declares it of it &s;elfe? if then the
advancement of <HI>Chri&s;ts Name</HI> after the <HI>re&s;urrection</HI> bee no more
then the <HI>declaring</HI> of the Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> God &s;hould but mocke his
Sonne, and indeed give him no more <HI>honour,</HI> or not &s;o much as
he gave him before.</P>
<P>To my fifth rea&s;on, that Je&s;us cannot be the Name above ove|ry
Name, becau&s;e <HI>Je&s;us was advanced after his re&s;urrection to bee
Lord and Chri&s;t, Act.</HI> 2. 36. you have nothing to &s;ay to it, but ac|cu&s;e
me of <HI>Ariani&s;me,</HI> as if &s;ay you <HI>Je&s;us</HI> was not the &s;ame be|fore,
that he was declared to be after the re&s;urrection, <HI>Lord,</HI>
and <HI>Chri&s;t.</HI> I an&s;wer, though Je&s;us were &s;o before, yet he was not
honoured &s;o before in re&s;pect of the <HI>humane nature,</HI> for &s;o hee
was <HI>advanced</HI> to that honour. If <HI>Je&s;us</HI> were the <HI>highe&s;t Name;</HI>
how could Je&s;us come to be more highly advanced in becom|ming
<HI>Lord</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t?</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Part 2. Sect. 4.</NOTE> And here I mu&s;t put you in mind of an
horrible <HI>ab&s;urdity</HI> of your opinion; you affirme that the name
<HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is the Name onely of the <HI>humanity,</HI> the Name <HI>Ie&s;us</HI> the
<HI>e&s;&s;entiall Name</HI> of <HI>God;</HI> then by this your <HI>doctrine,</HI> according to
this Text, <HI>Chri&s;t God</HI> in the time of his <HI>humiliation</HI> &s;hould be ex|alted
in being made man, when he was advanced after his re|&s;urrection.
That which I noted as con&s;iderable, is &s;till as con|&s;iderable
as it was: hee was mo&s;t commonly called Je&s;us in the
time of his humiliation, but after his <HI>Re&s;urrection,</HI> and <HI>A&s;cen&s;ion,</HI>
hee was mo&s;t commonly called <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> and when called <HI>Ie&s;us,</HI>
more commonly with the addition of <HI>Lord,</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> then
<HI>Ie&s;us</HI> onely. I have run over the whole new <HI>Te&s;tament,</HI> and I
finde to the utmo&s;t of my &s;earch, <HI>Ie&s;us</HI> alone named before the
a&s;cen&s;ion 490. times.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t</HI> alone but 40. times.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lord Ie&s;us <HI>but once.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Ie&s;us Chri&s;t, <HI>&s;ix times.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t <HI>not at all.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<LIST>
<HEAD>After the A&s;cen&s;ion.</HEAD>
<ITEM><HI>Chri&s;t</HI> alone is u&s;ed 238. times.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>Ie&s;us</HI> alone but 45. times.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lord Ie&s;us. 32. times.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Ie&s;us Chri&s;t <HI>or</HI> Chri&s;t Ie&s;us 125. times.</ITEM>
<ITEM>Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t 95. times.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P><PB N="12" REF="11">
Well then hence I argue that it is impo&s;&s;ible that the Name
Je&s;us &s;hould be the proper Name of the Deitie, and Chri&s;t of he
humanitie; for then &s;hould hee be mo&s;t commonly called <HI>God</HI>
in the time of his humiliation, when his <HI>God-head</HI> was veyled,
when <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> called him&s;elfe the <HI>Sonne of man,</HI> and mo&s;t com|monly
called <HI>Man</HI> in the time of his exaltation, after that hee
had mightily declared him&s;elfe to be the &s;onne of God; which
were utterly &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e to imagine.</P>
<P>But before I leave this, I will note a contradiction in Doctor
<HI>Page,</HI> your infallible witne&s;&s;e, who in his an&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Prynnes
Appendix</HI> *,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 55.</NOTE> makes <HI>Je&s;us</HI> to be the name of the Deitie, Chri&s;t of
the humanitie;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Page 197.</NOTE> yet in his an&s;wer to his <HI>Reply *,</HI> he affirmes, as I
noted before, that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is a name of greater <HI>dignitie</HI> and au|thoritie
then <HI>Je&s;us:</HI> hence it will follow that our Saviour is of
greater dignitie and authoritie as man then as God; let this
be reconciled if it can.</P>
<P>Your an&s;wer to my fixt rea&s;on is nothing but &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e &s;cur|rility.
Whereas I &s;ay, God in advancing his Sonne above all ex|cepted
him&s;elf, and no where is Chri&s;ts Name &s;aid to be advan|ced
above divine Names, but created onely; I overthrow here no
gracious di&s;pen&s;ation that you can prove from the word, for
though the high advancement of the Sonne be to the glory of
every Per&s;on, yet hath he not a Name or glory above them. And
if you can prove it otherwi&s;e by Scripture, why doe you &s;peake
of Scripture, and alledge none?</P>
<P>Seing <HI>Name above every Name</HI> cannot bee under&s;tood of the
name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Name above every Name, <HI>what it is.</HI></NOTE> I under&s;tand it of the <HI>&s;upereminent glory</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> up|on
the&s;e rea&s;ons. To let alone your &s;coffe at my <HI>tran&s;ition,</HI> for
you can doe nothing el&s;e, take the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> and the <HI>Name</HI> together
if you will, I deny it not. Fir&s;t I &s;ay it is no way contrary to
the <HI>Analogie</HI> of faith, &s;o to under&s;tand it, for Name is common|ly
taken for glory in Scripture. To this, your exception is no|thing;
for from hence I gather that this expo&s;ition is agreea|ble
to the Scripture.</P>
<P>Secondly, <HI>Name of God</HI> doth u&s;ually in Scripture denote the
<HI>power</HI> and <HI>glory</HI> of <HI>God</HI> either <HI>implicitly</HI> of <HI>expre&s;&s;ely:</HI> hence al&s;o I
gather that my expo&s;ition is acoording to the <HI>Scripture;</HI> But
you will have this make as much for you as me, but you cannot,
For whether <GAP DESC="foreign"> or <GAP DESC="foreign"> be <GAP DESC="foreign"> the Lord, or no,
is nothing to the purpo&s;e, our que&s;tion is about a <HI>Name,</HI> not <HI>Per|&s;on.</HI>
<PB N="13" REF="11">
This I can tell you, Sir, you cannot finde <HI>Name</HI> prefixed be|fore
any of the titles of God; as <HI>Name of God,</HI> or <HI>Lord,</HI> or <HI>Je&s;us,</HI>
&amp;c. to denote the name <HI>God</HI> or <HI>Lord;</HI> therefore are the Scrip|tures
again&s;t your expo&s;ition, though plaine for me.</P>
<P>To my third rea&s;on, you have more cau&s;e to blu&s;h for your <HI>fri|volous
exception,</HI> than I for affirming that it is more agreeable to
<HI>Scripture</HI> to under&s;tand name for the <HI>&s;upereminent power and glory of
Chri&s;t,</HI> then otherwi&s;e; for you &s;ee I an&s;wer on by degrees in my
rea&s;ons. My fir&s;t and &s;econd, as <HI>a great Name,</HI> and <HI>Name above
another;</HI> are two di&s;tinct phra&s;es, and doe every where &s;ignifie
not a <HI>proper Name,</HI> but onely <HI>glory:</HI> but you will have this to be
again&s;t me, for, &s;ay you, if a <HI>great Name</HI> doe &s;ignifie the <HI>great
glory</HI> of the <HI>per&s;on,</HI> then it is not the <HI>glory,</HI> for <HI>&s;ignum is not &s;igna|tum.</HI>
I reply &s;igne, and the thing &s;ignified are the &s;ame materi|ally,
and though when they &s;tand in oppo&s;ition they differ; yet
otherwi&s;e the &s;igne doth often denote the <HI>thing &s;ignified;</HI> and
they are the &s;ame.</P>
<P>To my fourth rea&s;on, that it mu&s;t be under&s;tood of <HI>Power</HI> and
<HI>Glory</HI> here, and not of the <HI>Name Je&s;us;</HI> for &s;o it fits the words
of the Text <HI>agreeable</HI> to other <HI>Scriptures,</HI> for name being here
the <HI>gift</HI> which God gave him, other <HI>corre&s;pondent Scriptures</HI> doe
&s;hew that <HI>power</HI> and <HI>glory</HI> was that <HI>gift,</HI> as <HI>Matth. 28. 18. 1 Pet.</HI> 1.
21. You an&s;wer here nothing at all to tho&s;e Scriptures; but one|ly
cavill again&s;t my rea&s;on. If, &s;ay you, the gift be <HI>power</HI> and <HI>glo|ry,</HI>
the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> &s;hould <HI>idem per idem agere.</HI> No Sir, I have proved
Sect. 12. that the&s;e words, <HI>God</HI> gave him a name, are but an am|plification
of <HI>Chri&s;ts advancement,</HI> and the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> doth no more
<HI>idem per idem agere,</HI> then he doth <HI>Ephe&s;. 12. 1. 1 Pet.</HI> 1. 21. where it
is &s;aid God rai&s;ed Chri&s;t from the dead, and gave him glory,
where the fir&s;t clau&s;e expre&s;&s;eth one maine degree of his exaltati|on,
the &s;econd is an <HI>amplification</HI> of it. Next you thinke to
encounter mee with a <HI>Dilemma.</HI> If Name bee power and glo|ry,
then &s;ay you, it mu&s;t be <HI>created</HI> or <HI>increated.</HI> Created it can|not
be &s;ay you, and be the name above every name; if increate,
then you &s;ay it is <HI>Ariani&s;me</HI> to affirme that it was then gi|ven
him; your <HI>Dilemma</HI> is nothing. It is fir&s;t <HI>created power and
glory,</HI> and &s;o it is above all <HI>created glories,</HI> though not <HI>increated.</HI>
Secondly, it is <HI>created,</HI> though not given to the e&s;&s;ence of
God, but to the humane nature to enjoy, and &s;o al&s;o it
is onely above all <HI>created glories.</HI> Your argument in the con|clu&s;ion,
<PB N="14" REF="12">
is but a meere begging of the que&s;tion without proofe,
and there is an equivocation in the minor, you mu&s;t tell mee
what name you meane by the Name of <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> &s;eeing you will
not have it read the <HI>Name Je&s;us.</HI></P>
<P>To my fifth rea&s;on, taken from the <HI>&s;cope</HI> and <HI>coherence of the Text,
viz.</HI> that the conjunction <GAP DESC="foreign"> declares a corre&s;pendence of <HI>Chri&s;ts
exaltation</HI> according to the di&s;tinct branches of his <HI>humiliation,</HI>
which an&s;wers directly to <HI>Chri&s;ts glory and dignity,</HI> which hee
departed from, but nothing at all to the name <HI>Je&s;us;</HI> there
being nothing &s;poken in the Text of a bare title, but of the
per&s;on of our Saviour. Fir&s;t you que&s;tion me for ob&s;erving <GAP DESC="foreign">
and not <GAP DESC="foreign">;<NOTE PLACE="marg">On Phil. 2. 9.</NOTE> but &s;o doth your owne Author <HI>Zanchy</HI> as well
as I: it is but a frivolous catch. This <GAP DESC="foreign"> doth demon&s;trate
&s;ay you, what I care not to &s;ee, that hee who&s;e <HI>per&s;on</HI> was &s;o
aviled, and his <HI>name,</HI> you meane the <HI>Name Je&s;us,</HI> put out by an
accur&s;ed death, was <HI>&s;uperexalted</HI> in both. Sir, I care to &s;ee any
thing that is in the <HI>Text,</HI> but not the fanta&s;ies of your braine.
Next you challenge me for &s;aying that <HI>Chri&s;t departed</HI> from his
<HI>glory:</HI> but what do I &s;ay more then the Apo&s;tle, He emptied him|&s;elfe;
or more then <HI>Zanchy,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De natura Dei <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. 1. c. 17.</NOTE> <HI>Nomen Dei depo&s;uit, cum depo&s;uit gloriam,</HI>
laying down being a kind of leaving wherein I doe not meane as
this <HI>malecontent</HI> &s;eemes to challenge me, as if Chri&s;t ever cea&s;ed to
be God, but only that he was not &s;o honoured by the world in
regard of the veile of his <HI>humanitie:</HI> And this &s;hall &s;erve to an&s;wer
this exception, where ever it is mentioned: next when you cannot
fa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">ten any rea&s;on for your opinion upon the <HI>Text,</HI> nor an&s;wer
my rea&s;on drawne thence, you goe about to fumble up a rea&s;on
by asking a que&s;tion, by which you &s;ay you will condemne me
out of my owne mouth, which is this; A <HI>per&s;on</HI> is humbled;
and who is that <HI>per&s;on?</HI> I mu&s;t an&s;wer the <HI>Sonne of God:</HI> and
what is his <HI>Name?</HI> I mu&s;t an&s;wer &s;ay you, <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. 10. his name
is <HI>Je&s;us:</HI> (but &s;oft Sir, there is nothing &s;poken there of a bare
name, but per&s;on) then <HI>Je&s;us</HI> &s;ay you was the name &s;o hum|bled,
and con&s;equently the name &s;o advanced. Is not this fine
learned &s;tuffe? If the Name Je&s;us &s;uffered as the per&s;on &s;uffered,
then it will follow that the name Je&s;us died, ro&s;e againe, and
now &s;its at the right hand of God; and then where will you
have it to bow to? if it mu&s;t needs be that the <HI>Name</HI> fares as the
<HI>per&s;on</HI> fares, becau&s;e it is &s;o and &s;o with the per&s;on, therefore
<PB N="15" REF="12">
it mu&s;t be &s;o, and &s;o with the name. Then I wonder that <HI>Tho|mas
Barton</HI> being afraid that him&s;elfe &s;hould be puni&s;hed for his
<HI>demerits,</HI> that he was not afraid left his <HI>Name Thomas</HI> &s;hould be
puni&s;hed, and why then did he bring his <HI>Name Thomas</HI> to open
light when <HI>him&s;elfe</HI> was afraid to appeare? It is no mervaile that
tho&s;e that &s;et them&s;elves to re&s;i&s;t the truth &s;hould runne into
&s;uch <HI>ridiculous non&s;en&s;e.</HI> This argument of yours drawne from
the &s;uffering of the Name Je&s;us is the be&s;t you have; yet is it a
&s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e one, not &s;o much as intimated in the <HI>Text,</HI> or any o|ther
<HI>Scripture,</HI> nor agreeable to rea&s;on. Let the <HI>reader</HI> judge,
whether your compari&s;on in the beginning of the Sieve hol|ding
the cour&s;e, and letting goe the fine, which you impute to
my <HI>Section,</HI> doe not befall your an&s;wer to it. But as you have an|&s;wered
this Section, &s;o have you done all the re&s;t.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>VVHereas I doe not &s;o well <HI>approve</HI> of the opinion of
tho&s;e <HI>Expo&s;itors</HI> that refer the <HI>&s;ubjected Names</HI> to <HI>ratio|nall
creatures</HI> only, but rather refer them to all things and crea|tures
what&s;oever; &s;hewing proofe for my opinion, yet referring
my &s;elfe to better information if I can have it; you take advan|tage
at this, and taxe me that I oppo&s;e them with all my might
by whom I pretend to be guided: but I hope Sir I may &s;hew
<HI>rea&s;on</HI> for my <HI>opinion,</HI> and make it as &s;trong as I can; and I mu&s;t
tell you, my opinion is as it was: you have an&s;wered nothing
to purpo&s;e to any of the <HI>Scriptures</HI> I alleadged. The maine proofe
of my rea&s;on, that <HI>Chri&s;ts Kingdome</HI> in this Text is not onely
of <HI>Mediator&s;hip,</HI> but <HI>naturall,</HI> you deny, and under&s;tand it one|ly
of the Kingdome of Mediator&s;hip:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Phil. 2. 9. 10.</NOTE> but your owne Author
<HI>Zanchy</HI> under&s;tandeth it of both: yea you your &s;elfe under&s;tand
it of both:<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. pag. 88.</NOTE> And &s;ome Texts by mee alledged here, parallel to
that of <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. you apply to both; why not then this Text?
Next&punc; becau&s;e I &s;ay that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> according to his <HI>humane nature</HI>
is advanced to the glory of the naturall kingdome, and that he
is exalted to be partaker of the <HI>glory of the divine nature</HI> in the <HI>in|heriting
of all things;</HI> you maliciou&s;ly lay Eutychi&s;me to my
charge, as if I meant that the humane nature is ab&s;orpt by the
<PB N="16" REF="13">
divine nature,<NOTE PLACE="marg">If you had dealt fairely you &s;hould have &s;et down my words as they were cor|rected and not as they were mi&s;printed.</NOTE> uncharitably con&s;truing this Phra&s;e <HI>[according to
the humane nature]</HI> contrary to my meaning. As if I meant it as
a cau&s;e. <HI>Chri&s;t according to his humane nature</HI> is onely this, <HI>Chri&s;t
man,</HI> or <HI>Chri&s;t in the humanitie;</HI> and &s;o <HI>&V;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">&s;in,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Catech. p. 308. l. 31.</NOTE> under&s;tandeth the
very &s;ame phra&s;e, and to the very &s;ame purpo&s;e, as I doe here: nei|ther
doe I &s;ay that <HI>Chri&s;t man</HI> is partaker of the <HI>divine E&s;&s;ence,</HI>
but onely of the <HI>glory</HI> of it, in the <HI>inheriting of all things;</HI> neither
doe I confound the <HI>two kingdomes,</HI> as you lay to my charge, but
onely di&s;tingui&s;h them: therefore you &s;hew your &s;elfe a mo&s;t ma|licious
per&s;on in charging me thus fal&s;ely as you doe; which to
compa&s;&s;e, you care not how ab&s;urdly you contradict your &s;elfe.
Next when you are empty in &s;ub&s;tantiall exceptions, you come
upon me for a da&s;h or point; affirming as if I had &s;et downe a
<HI>Comma</HI> for a <HI>Colon,</HI> but &s;hew me not where; and I profe&s;&s;e I can|not
finde where it is in the whole <HI>Section,</HI> as you lay to my
<HI>charge.</HI> Where-ever it is I did nothing <HI>purpo&s;ely;</HI> a da&s;h may
mi&s;carry in the writing or in the Pre&s;&s;e. Therefore <HI>T. B.</HI>
is lame and not I, in making &s;uch lame exceptions. Here yet for
all your &s;trouting you &s;tand to an&s;wer to tho&s;e <HI>parallel Scriptures,</HI>
where is &s;hewed the <HI>Subjection</HI> of every creature to the <HI>Kingdome
of Chri&s;t,</HI> for hitherto you have not an&s;wered them nor <HI>tho&s;e
Authors,</HI> which I have brought for it. Your <HI>Syllogi&s;me</HI> is not
right. This you &s;ay, that name above which there is no name
of God, is the name above every name. But &s;o is the Name of
Je&s;us. In your <HI>maior</HI> you de&s;ert your opinion, for you &s;hould
have &s;aid, that name which is above every name of God, for that
is your opinion. In your <HI>minor</HI> there is an equivocation, for
you doe not &s;hew what name you meane by the name of Je&s;us,
&s;eeing you will not have it called the Name Je&s;us.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<P>VVHerein I &s;hew, that <HI>bowing of the Knee</HI> in this Text is
not to be taken <HI>literally</HI> and <HI>expre&s;&s;ely,</HI> for the bowing
of that member of the body, which we call the knee. My fir&s;t
rea&s;on is becau&s;e <HI>bowing</HI> in the Scripture is taken figuratively,
therefore may otherwi&s;e be under&s;tood,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ezek 7. 17. I&s;ay 35. 3.</NOTE> <HI>P&s;al. 44. 25. Hab.</HI> 3. 6.
And &s;o &s;econdly, are knees taken <HI>metaphorically.</HI> Here Mr. <HI>Barton</HI>
<PB N="17" REF="13">
&s;aith that the&s;e two rea&s;ons hold nothing: but Sir, I pray you
take all my rea&s;ons together, and &s;o they prove &s;ufficiently what
I intend, as it is &s;aid, <HI>out of the mouth of two or three witne&s;&s;es every
thing &s;hall be e&s;tabli&s;hed:</HI> one doth it not alone, but two or three
united: You &s;ee, I except my two fir&s;t from evidently pro|ving,
they &s;hew onely that this expo&s;ition is agreeable to
the <HI>Scriptures,</HI> my maine &s;trength lies in my third <HI>Rea&s;on,</HI>
confirmed by the other: where I prove that becau&s;e <HI>An|gels,
Devills, &s;oules of men</HI> mu&s;t bow; be&s;ides &s;en&s;itive, and in&s;en&s;i|tive
creatures; which have no proper knees: therefore proper
knees are not commanded. For if &s;uch knees were properly
commanded, it would be inju&s;tice in God to require &s;uch knees
where they are not: as in a King if hee &s;hould command &s;uch a
&s;umme of mony to be payd by his &s;ubjects, which he knowes
they are not able to pay. That which you an&s;wer to this is to
no purpo&s;e; For it is ab&s;urd to &s;ay, becau&s;e &s;ome creatures
have knees, they are bound to bow proper knees <HI>expre&s;&s;ely,</HI> and
tho&s;e creatures that have no knees, are bound to bow <HI>analogically:</HI>
for the &s;ame bowing is injoyned to all, if the Text did make a
<HI>difference</HI> it were &s;omething; but there is no difference in the
Text. But you will prove that <HI>Angels</HI> have <HI>knees</HI> as well as
<HI>Tongues, 1 Cor.</HI> 13. 1. and <HI>faces, Rev.</HI> 7. 11. and they are &s;aid to
&s;tand, to fall downe, which in&s;inuate knees; and this you &s;ay
is enough to tho&s;e that will be &s;atisfied with rea&s;on; Sir this
rea&s;on will not &s;atisfie any one that knowes the <HI>Scriptures:</HI> for
becau&s;e faces, tongues and bodily po&s;tures are a&s;cribed to An|gels,
it will not follow that they have them properly, no more
then becau&s;e hands, face, eares, backparts, and po&s;tures of de&s;cen|ding
and marching on are a&s;cribed to God in Scripture, that
God hath the&s;e properly.</P>
<P>Now becau&s;e you except things in&s;en&s;itive from this bowing,
I will overthrow you by your owne infallible witne&s;&s;e Doctor
<HI>Page,</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>In&s;tit</HI> of bowing, p. 48.</NOTE> who cites &s;undry authors to &s;hew that this Text is to be
under&s;tood of the &s;ubjection of all, both <HI>friends</HI> and <HI>enemies,</HI> to
<HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> alledging for proofe that place of 1 <HI>Cor. 15. 25. We mu&s;t
reigne till he hath put all his enemies under his feet;</HI> in the next ver&s;e it
is &s;ubjoyned, <HI>the la&s;t enemy that &s;hall be de&s;troyed is death:</HI> whereby
it is expre&s;&s;ely &s;hewed that death al&s;o being an enemy mu&s;t bow
and fulfill the Text. I would faine know now what bodily
<PB N="18" REF="14">
knees hath Death: Death doth in part bow already; becau&s;e it
is in part &s;ubdued: but how will you have Death bow at the
mention of the Name Je&s;us? except you thinke the knee bones
of the dead rattle in the graves, when you name Je&s;us in the
Church over them; but you mu&s;t make their hearts to under|&s;tand,
and the Sculles to heare too, el&s;e it is pa&s;t any under|&s;tanding,
to conceive how it can be done. But I mu&s;t tell you
Sir, how ever you will wrangle it out, that your friends and
your &s;elfe too under&s;tand this Text figuratively. For<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">In&s;tit. of bowing, p. 87.</NOTE> Doctor
<HI>Page</HI> from <HI>Origen,</HI> and<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Ant. p. 44.</NOTE> you your &s;elfe from that Author doe
under&s;tand it of the knees of the <HI>&s;oule</HI> as well as of the <HI>body;</HI> &s;o
doth<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Learne to live, Chap. 14.</NOTE> <HI>Sutten.</HI> Now what proper knees have <HI>&s;oules?</HI> then what pro|per
knees have <HI>Angels?</HI> which are purer Spirits then &s;oules: So
that under&s;tanding it thus, you mu&s;t needs under&s;tand it of the
<HI>whole &s;trength</HI> of the creature, for what proper knees have <HI>&s;oules</HI>
more then other parts of the body? yea, they come nearer to
proper knees then the &s;oule; being corporeall as the proper knee
is, which &s;oules are not. Therefore you expounding the Text
of &s;oul-knees, you cannot in any &s;en&s;e exclude the other parts
of the body, be&s;ides the proper knee, and therefore whether
you will or no, you mu&s;t yeeld to me here; If you under&s;tand
the Text of expre&s;&s;e corporeall knees, then are no other knees
commanded, then are not <HI>Angels</HI> and <HI>Devills</HI> to bow becau&s;e
they have no &s;uch knees, and &s;o it will be <HI>will-wor&s;hip</HI> in you to
give any part be&s;ides the <HI>knee,</HI> and then you &s;inne, when you
put of your hat, and bow your bodie at the name; when in &s;o
doing you doe rather &s;tiffen your knees, then bow them. If
the <HI>proper knee</HI> be expre&s;&s;ely commanded, that part onely mu&s;t
be given and nothing el&s;e in &s;tead of it, then you cannot un|der&s;tand
it of &s;oule-knees; for &s;oule-knees are no proper knees.
Therefore you mu&s;t with me here (yea you doe if you could
&s;ee) under&s;tand by bowing every knee, the &s;ubjection of the
whole creature to Chri&s;t. That <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign"> are properly
taken for &s;uch a bowing, as yeelds an outward expre&s;&s;ion, is
nothing to the purpo&s;e, for &s;uch words as are taken <HI>properly</HI> are
&s;ometimes u&s;ed <HI>improperly,</HI> as <GAP DESC="foreign"> which properly &s;ignifieth to
<HI>goe forth</HI> or <HI>walke</HI> on, is improperly applyed to God, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 68. 7.
So doth the word u&s;ed <HI>Gen.</HI> 18. 21. properly &s;ignifie to goe
downe, which is yet a&s;cribed to God who properly cannot de|&s;cend.
<PB N="19" REF="14">
So that in that I have &s;aid,<NOTE PLACE="marg">You doe not here an&s;wer the parallel of ki&s;&s;ing Chri&s;t, P&s;al. 2. 12. by which &s;ubje|ction is &s;ignifi|ed as well as by bowing, but you &s;ay, Sect. 18. bow|ing and the ki&s;&s;e hold not; becau&s;e we have the name to bow to, nor the per|&s;on to ki&s;&s;e, but at the day of judgement hee will ap|peare; belike then you will be &s;o bold as to ki&s;&s;e Chri&s;t at that day, if once you be made Lord Bi&s;hop.</NOTE> I doe not deny the <HI>knee;</HI> but
I affirme that it is no more commanded then the <HI>&s;oule;</HI> or other
parts of the body. For the &s;econd part of this Section, <HI>viz.</HI> the
confe&s;&s;ion of the tongue; you doe extreamely triffle with mee;
for you &s;peake fal&s;ely in &s;aying, that I exclude the tongue of
the body properly &s;o called, you &s;ee I mention it; but I un|der&s;tand
it not of the &s;aid tongue expre&s;&s;ely, and particularly,
but in a generall &s;en&s;e, all tongues mu&s;t &s;peake as well as this
tongue, &s;oule tongues, and all bodily tongues, the vertures of
the whole creature, yea as <HI>David</HI> &s;aith, all my bones &s;hall &s;ay,
Lord who is like to thee? <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 35. 10. even as the <HI>in&s;en&s;itive crea|tures,</HI>
that have no tongues, are &s;aid to &s;peake the <HI>prai&s;e of Chri&s;t</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Rev. 5. 13. P&s;al 19. 1, 2, 3. P&s;al. 148.</NOTE>.
Yea you plainely agree with me here, for you &s;ay no more then
I, and I as much as you, you &s;ay the heart, and tongue, &s;oule
and body mu&s;t be &s;ubject; and &s;o <HI>confe&s;&s;e.</HI> Your acknowledging
that <HI>irrationall creatures</HI> confe&s;&s;e Chri&s;t doth evidently over|throw
your Tenet of the not bowing of tho&s;e <HI>creatures;</HI> for all
that in the Text confe&s;&s;e, doe al&s;o blow the knee, &s;eeing then
the&s;e confe&s;&s;e they mu&s;t needs bow; &s;o that you and I doe not
greatly fall out in this <HI>Section</HI> if you could &s;ee it: but you doe
not &s;ee it as appeareth by your &s;yllogi&s;me, the <HI>minor</HI> whereof I
deny, and have di&s;proved.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I affirme, that to under&s;tand this phra&s;e <HI>in the Name of
Je&s;us</HI> to be <HI>at the mention of the Name Je&s;us</HI> cannot be paral|leld
in the expo&s;ition of the &s;aid phra&s;e by any Scripture. <HI>In
the name</HI> prefixed before any title of <HI>God;</HI> yea I now &s;ay before
any name what&s;oever, can no where beare this &s;en&s;e; fir&s;t, you
deny that you bow at the bare Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> but of that before,
and you give me barbarous language in that I &s;ay you under|&s;tand
it <HI>at the mention of the Name Je&s;us:</HI> But if you &s;tood not in
need of Hellebore (as you &s;ay I doe) you would not be &s;o out|ragious
in outfacing the plaine truth; you &s;ay (for&s;ooth) at the
mention of Je&s;us, but not at the name Je&s;us. Who under&s;tan|deth
you now? if you bow at the mention of Je&s;us, it mu&s;t be done
as well at the mention of any other title of Je&s;us, by which hee
<PB N="20" REF="15">
is denominated. If not at the mention of the name Je&s;us, why
doe you keepe &s;uch a &s;tirre about this name? all the world &s;ees
that you bow at the mention of this name, and no other; and
if you meane it not at the <HI>time</HI> when this name is mentioned,
why doe you it <HI>immediately,</HI> and not let it alone till &s;ome other
time? you your &s;elfe &s;ay otherwi&s;e in this Section <GAP DESC="foreign">
is all one <GAP DESC="foreign"> when Je&s;us is named; Yea you
yeeld at length, and for&s;ooth you &s;ay you will overcome mee
with my owne weapons, as when I &s;ay, <HI>P&s;al. 118. 10. all nations
compa&s;&s;ed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will de&s;troy them:</HI>
would it not be a wild &s;en&s;e, &s;ay I, to under&s;tand it thus, <HI>at the
naming of the Lord I will de&s;troy them? You here aske me if I were well
when I printed this; for &s;ay you, can there be any more intended by In
the name of the Lord, then the bringing the Lord into the midde&s;t be|tweene
him and his enemies? and is there any other way to doe that then
by the faithfull mention of his name?</HI> Sir, I was better when I prin|ted
this clau&s;e then you, when you an&s;wered; it but doe you ex|pound
this Text as you doe, <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9, 10? doth In there &s;ignifie
time, as you expound it in <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. and match it with <HI>Gen.</HI> 1. 1? <HI>In</HI>
here indeed notes the <HI>cau&s;e,</HI> but not <HI>time.</HI> So that the meaning
is this, <HI>In the name of the Lord,</HI> i.e. <HI>by the power and a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the
Lord I will de&s;troy them:</HI> but if you will parallel this place with
<HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 10. as you under&s;tand it, you mu&s;t make the &s;en&s;e to bee
this. All nations compa&s;&s;ed me about; but when the <HI>Lord is
mentioned,</HI> that is, at the in&s;tant time thereof, I will de&s;troy them,
as at the very time, when Je&s;us is mentioned you bow; if this
be the meaning of the <HI>P&s;almi&s;t,</HI> I &s;ee no rea&s;on but you mu&s;t have
a Sword, or a Pi&s;toll, or &s;uch like with you at the Church, and
when the Lord is mentioned, you mu&s;t fall to killing your ene|mies;
and then when the people &s;ay <HI>good Lord deliver us,</HI> if you
have any enemies there, they deliver up them&s;elves into your
hands, to be killed, and &s;o you will not bee of <HI>Davids</HI> minde;
for he when his adver&s;aries were again&s;t him, gave him&s;elfe to
prayers, but when your enemies pray you will kill them. My
next Scripture is, <HI>Act. 9. 29. Saul &s;pake boldly in the name of the
Lord Je&s;us,</HI> I &s;ay it would be infinitely ab&s;urd to &s;ay hee &s;pake
boldly at the naming of the Lord Je&s;us; <HI>you cry out again&s;t mee
and &s;ay is this ab&s;urd? and infinitely too? we all know that Paul was
a zealous profe&s;&s;or, and might not he be &s;tout at the mention or naming
<PB N="21" REF="15">
of Je&s;us? he is &s;toutly preached, whom we feare to name. Now you
cry out where is this great challenger? were I Anteus I &s;hould never
ri&s;e againe:</HI> but &s;tay Sir, I am on my legges yet, to buckle with
you once, and againe; What, doth <HI>In</HI> &s;ignifie <HI>time</HI> here, as you wil
have it &s;ignifie at <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9? <HI>Nomen capitur pro profe&s;&s;ione:</HI> <Q><HI>Name
is taken for profe&s;&s;ion. So the &s;en&s;e is this, Paul valiantly defended the
cau&s;e of Christ;</HI></Q> but if you will have In &s;ignifie the pre&s;ent
time there, then the &s;en&s;e will be this; <HI>Saul</HI> preached or &s;pake
boldly when Je&s;us was named, that is, as &s;oone as ever the
Name was named, as accordingly you bow. Then it will fol|low
that when&s;oever you heare <HI>Je&s;us</HI> named you mu&s;t fall to
<HI>preaching,</HI> and then as &s;oone as you come in the <HI>Common Booke
of Prayer</HI> to the ab&s;olution, <HI>Je&s;us</HI> being named you mu&s;t fall to
<HI>preaching,</HI> and then you mu&s;t curtaile almo&s;t all the <HI>Divine Ser|vice,</HI>
and run into that which you judge a great fault in others,
goe to your Sermon before you have &s;aid the <HI>Lords Prayer,</HI> or <HI>Ca|nonicall
prayer;</HI> &amp; though you &s;hould make but a &s;hort Sermon &amp;
returne to your ab&s;olution, at the conclu&s;ion of it <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is named
againe, and once more you mu&s;t goe to <HI>preaching</HI> before you come
to the Lords Prayer; and if you preach every time Je&s;us is named
in the divine &s;ervice, you will preach oftner in a day then any
of tho&s;e you call <HI>Puritans,</HI> in a quarter of a yeare at lea&s;t; and
if often preaching bee as you deeme, a note of a <HI>Puritane,</HI> you
will be the <HI>ranke&s;t Puritane</HI> in the world; yea in the <HI>ab&s;olution
Je&s;us</HI> and <HI>Lord</HI> being both mentioned together, you mu&s;t <HI>preach</HI>
and <HI>kill,</HI> all at one time, and this I thinke will bee the madde&s;t
Sermon that ever was made. In the next place as if my owne
<HI>weapons</HI> were not enough to &s;trike me dead, you will &s;trike mee
with your owne, and what are they? Fir&s;t, you bring the third
Commandement, but this phra&s;e in the name is not there. Next
you come to <HI>Joh.</HI> 16. 23. what&s;oever you &s;hall aske the Father in
my name; that is, &s;ay you by faith mentioning me as <HI>mediatour.</HI>
And then you argue, <HI>Act. 5. 40. not to &s;peake in the name of Je&s;us, ei|ther
by preaching, &s;ay you, or otherwi&s;e to his glory, at our invocation over
the name of Ie&s;us is a fruitfull naming, or mentioning of him; not inward|ly
alwayes, but by heart and tongue al&s;o alwayes unto God, Ephe&s;.</HI> 5. 20.
To what purpo&s;e is this brought? what frivolous &s;tuffe is here?
And yet you having had me downe before in your conceit, now
you gall me terribly. But we will examine the&s;e places: as for
<PB N="22" REF="16">
<HI>Act.</HI> 5. 40. it is an&s;wered before in <HI>Act.</HI> 9. 29. being a parallel
place, but I adde this further to it, Were the Apo&s;tles forbidden
to mention the name Je&s;us? did not their enemies mention Je&s;us
as well as they?</P>
<P>But you adde <HI>[to his glory].</HI> But you will have your people
bow when you mention <HI>Ie&s;us</HI> in the Church, but you will not
have them que&s;tion whether you doe it to his glory or no; As
for <HI>Iob.</HI> 16. 23. we are bidden there <HI>to pray to the Father in the name
of Chri&s;t,</HI> that is, in and by <HI>Chri&s;t him&s;elfe,</HI> as other places demon|&s;trate:
but I pray Sir, doth In here &s;ignifie time? If you under|&s;tand
this place as you doe <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. the &s;en&s;e will be this, what|&s;oever
you aske of my Father, when Je&s;us is named; then it
will follow that when&s;oever you heare <HI>Ie&s;us</HI> named, you mu&s;t
fall to <HI>Prayer.</HI> And as before this &s;en&s;e of <HI>Act.</HI> 9. 29. will drive
you to <HI>preaching</HI> in the time of <HI>prayer:</HI> So here it will drive you
to <HI>prayer</HI> in the time of <HI>preaching,</HI> if at any time you name Je&s;us in
it;<NOTE PLACE="marg">* Sect. 5. You make the men|tioning of Je|&s;us to bee a &s;igne how to know when to bow, by this rea&s;on you mu&s;t make it al&s;o a &s;igne how to know when to preach and pray.</NOTE> and what a confu&s;ion will this be al&s;o?</P>
<P>But to returne againe to the&s;e two places, <HI>Act.</HI> 9. and <HI>Ioh.</HI> 16.
If Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> bring <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. to the meaning of the&s;e two pla|ces
as he under&s;tands them, he cannot but know that preaching
and praying is begun, and continued before and after Je&s;us is
named, and not then begun onely at the in&s;tant time of na|ming
of it, for Je&s;us is named but now and then; then accor|ding
to this you mu&s;t continue all along your <HI>Ge&s;ture</HI> of bow|ing,
throughout preaching and praying, though the name Je|&s;us
be &s;eldome mentioned; and then you mu&s;t neither kneele
nor &s;tand, but have your body bowed all the time halfe way to
the ground, and then there &s;hall not be any vi&s;ible appearance
of bowing at the name Je&s;us more then ordinary, then at any
other name what&s;oever, which may bee named in preaching or
prayer: and if any &s;hould &s;ee you in this <HI>po&s;ture,</HI> continuing
halfe bowed to the ground, they would thinke you to be di&s;po|&s;ed
to another kinde of bu&s;ine&s;&s;e then preaching or prayer. I ap|peale
here to all the world whether you have not here given
your &s;elfe &s;uch <HI>a &s;hamefull foyle</HI> as you will never be able to reco|ver.
My expo&s;ition of <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 63. 4. you mi&s;like not; but yet it
cannot beare your &s;en&s;e of <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. for though the Saints have
u&s;ed to lift up the hands in prayer, yet I thinke they are not
preci&s;ely bound to it; and if they were, it is &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e to gather
<PB N="23" REF="16">
from this or any other place, that they are bound to a new act
of lifting up the hands every time the name of God &s;ounds,
which &s;en&s;e you mu&s;t put upon it, if you match it with <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9.
you have not proved yet that In the name &s;ignifieth any where
at the time of mentioning the name, neither can you; here then
one maine pillar of your cau&s;e is &s;haken downe.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<P>TO my gathering up my &s;en&s;e together you wrong me, for
&s;aying that I doe not keepe the <HI>Analogie</HI> of the advancing
<HI>Chri&s;ts glory</HI> above all <HI>glories;</HI> for I name <HI>dignities,</HI> which is all
one. And Doctor <HI>Page</HI> &s;aith that the name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> was made a
name <HI>beneath</HI> all names, and how doe I then offend in &s;aying
that Chri&s;t received a name beneath all names in his humiliati|on;<NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>In&s;tit.</HI> of bow|ing, p. 41.</NOTE>
though we differ in the &s;en&s;e of the word <HI>name?</HI> And Sir
let the wind be in what <HI>quarter</HI> it will, I tru&s;t I &s;hall alwayes &s;tand
for outward <HI>wor&s;hip:</HI> but not for this your &s;uper&s;titious wor|&s;hip:
And I mu&s;t tell you Sir, that <HI>better &s;chollers</HI> then your &s;elfe,
that are farther from <HI>Ariani&s;me,</HI> then you from <HI>Antichri&s;tia|ni&s;me,</HI>
doe under&s;tand Name here for power and glory, as ge|nerally
all our <HI>moderne Divines</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Zanchy</HI> your owne witne&s;&s;e &s;o under&s;tan|deth it.</NOTE> And when I &s;ay, Chri&s;t &s;hall be
manife&s;ted to be Lord, &amp;c. I doe not meane, <HI>given</HI> is mani|fe&s;ted,
but that he &s;hall fully manife&s;t him&s;elfe to the Lord by
his glorious power,<NOTE PLACE="marg">* Dedit illi no|men quod e&s;t &s;u|pranomen, &s;en&s;ui e&s;t, Chri&s;tum, qua etiam homo, propter &s;uam obedientiam &amp; humilitatem &s;upra omnia fui&s;&s;e a patre exaltatum, ut nulla &s;it vel in coelis, vel in terris par dig|nitas, Da 369. Elohim, l. 3. c. 2. p. 430.</NOTE> e&s;pecially at the day of judgement, when
al&s;o all tongues &s;hall acknowledge him &s;o to be. For your ex|po&s;ition
of the Text, as I lay to your charge, it mu&s;t be &s;o, for
the Text <HI>limits</HI> no time to us more then to any other <HI>creature,</HI> if
we are bound to bow at the Name <HI>Je&s;us:</HI> but at <HI>preaching,</HI> and
<HI>prayer,</HI> at <HI>publike</HI> and <HI>private devotion,</HI> e&s;pecially on the <HI>Lords day;</HI>
then the <HI>Devils</HI> and <HI>damned</HI> are no more bound: then you mu&s;t
have <HI>preaching</HI> and <HI>prayer</HI> in hell; and Devils and damned to
ob&s;erve the Lords day, and to have publike and private devoti|on:
and what I have &s;aid again&s;t this crotchet of yours in Sect.
10, 11. neither Dr. <HI>Page</HI> here, nor your &s;elfe there have taken off,
for you &s;ay nothing to the purpo&s;e.</P>
<P><HI>But you will have the expo&s;ition of the Text to be this:</HI> the
Lord Je&s;us by the union, and for our &s;alvation was humbled: where|fore
<PB N="24" REF="17">
God exalted him, and &s;et up the name Je&s;us above every name; that
for the union, and our &s;alvation, every rationall creature &s;hould bow at
the nameof Je&s;us; <HI>which you will have to be at the mention of
Je&s;us.</HI></P>
<P>Now whereas you e&s;teeme my interpretation to be &s;hort, hard,
doubtful; I appeale to all the <HI>world</HI> whether I have added or detra|cted
any thing, or have not made good every <HI>clau&s;e</HI> from the <HI>Scrip|tures.</HI>
And that your interpretation is not according to the Scrip|tures
I have proved; and be&s;ides you adde to the Text: for the&s;e
words <HI>(for the union, and for our &s;alvation)</HI> are not in the Text.</P>
<P>In my notation of the <HI>ab&s;urdities</HI> of your opinion, I &s;ay a|gaine,
to under&s;tand <HI>Name</HI> for <HI>glory,</HI> the name is knowne what
is given <HI>Chri&s;t:</HI> but to under&s;tand name for a proper name;
it is not &s;hewed what name it is in this clau&s;e, <HI>(God gave him a
name above every name)</HI> and whereas you bid me looke for it in
the 10. <HI>ver&s;e,</HI> I referre my &s;elfe to this <HI>clau&s;e,</HI> and in ver&s;e 10. you
contradict your &s;elfe; for you &s;till fall out with me for calling
it the <HI>Name Je&s;us:</HI> You doe not then &s;hew what <HI>Name</HI> it is; the
re&s;t of your an&s;wer is but <HI>rayling</HI> and <HI>very babling</HI> and is &s;uffici|ently
an&s;wered already.</P>
<P>In my &s;econd note I &s;ay againe that in your expo&s;ition you
doe not denote the <HI>per&s;on</HI> properly, to whom the bowing &s;hall
be done, but onely &s;et downe a time when the <HI>bowing</HI> &s;hall bee
done, neither have you an&s;wered it; for the Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> as you
meane it, is di&s;tinct from the <HI>per&s;on.</HI> But you &s;ay, how &s;hall wee
know when to bow if it be not &s;ignified by &s;ome <HI>&s;igne?</HI> I reply,
by what <HI>&s;igne</HI> &s;hall wee know how to honour the <HI>Father?</HI> you
will not obey without &s;ignes. Tho&s;e <HI>famous Churches</HI> that abomi|nate
your bowing, know how and when to honour <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> bet|ter
then your &s;elfe.</P>
<P>Thirdly, I &s;ay againe that in this your expo&s;ition you apply
no <HI>honour</HI> at all to the name, if you make <HI>In</HI> to &s;ignifie <HI>time,</HI> but
onely make it a <HI>watchword</HI> when to bow, you &s;et not downe to
whom. And if you under&s;tand <HI>In</HI> for <HI>To,</HI> as Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes</HI> doth
under&s;tand it al&s;o, then you give <HI>the name</HI> the whole bowing of
the <HI>regard,</HI> and <HI>honour</HI> al&s;o, call it what you will, and none at
all to the per&s;on: but referring it to both you adde to the <HI>Text,</HI>
and either way you make it <HI>Idolatry;</HI> in the fir&s;t &s;en&s;e it is evident|ly
plaine, and in the &s;econd <HI>Bi&s;hop Babington</HI> parallels it with
<PB N="25" REF="17">
<HI>Idolatry,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Expo&s;ition of the Creed.</NOTE> you know it well enough though you will take no no|tice
of it. And you are an impudent per&s;on to &s;ay that Bi&s;hop
<HI>Babington</HI> in that place &s;aith nothing again&s;t your <HI>&s;en&s;e;</HI> for he
neither under&s;tandeth <HI>Name</HI> to be <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> but <HI>power, and glory,</HI> nei|ther
doth he under&s;tand bowing <HI>literally,</HI> but for &s;ubjection, and
he calls your wor&s;hip <HI>&s;yllable wor&s;hip,</HI> and &s;aith &s;uch wor&s;hippers
are given up to <HI>delu&s;ions:</HI> As for Dr. <HI>Whitakers,</HI> he is as full as
any again&s;t your &s;en&s;e, though hee might hold it indifferent,
&s;o bowing be at other names al&s;o; but &s;ole bowing at the name
Je&s;us he holds unlawfull, and utterly damnes your expo&s;ition;
not onely in that place which I have quoted, but in his an&s;wer
to <HI>William Regnolds</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Page 398.</NOTE>; your Argument in the end is but a meere
begging of the Que&s;tion without proofe, and &s;o I leave it. As
for Sir <HI>Edward Deering,</HI> he is no expo&s;itour of Scripture: I can|not
judge of him, becau&s;e I have not &s;eene him.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;hew that the &s;aid expo&s;ition of this Text is not con|firmed
by any corre&s;pondent Scripture &s;peaking of the
&s;ame thing, and there be &s;ome words and phra&s;es &s;o expoun|ded
here, as the like words, and phra&s;es will not beare that &s;en&s;e
in any Scripture, as I have fully proved in the premi&s;es (this
I &s;ay, and this is my meaning though you bee willing to wre&s;t
me) therefore this is a fal&s;e expo&s;ition. The con&s;equence I prove
from <HI>Rom.</HI> 12. 6. and 2 <HI>Pet.</HI> 1. 20. you &s;ay the meaning of the&s;e
Scriptures is that all interpretations mu&s;t be made according to
the Axiomes of the Chri&s;tian faith. But granting this it makes
again&s;t you; for the Axiomes of our faith mu&s;t be proved by
the Scriptures. Your an&s;wer to my te&s;timonies of <HI>Augu&s;tine</HI> and
<HI>Zanchy</HI> is nothing at all, but this; is <HI>Augu&s;tine;</HI> is <HI>Zanchy</HI> for
you? which is frivolous. To your cur&s;e in the conclu&s;ion, I op|po&s;e
that of the P&s;almi&s;t,<NOTE PLACE="marg">P&s;al. 109.</NOTE> <HI>P&s;al. 109. He loved cur&s;ing, therefore it &s;hall
happen to him.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<PB N="26" REF="18">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<P>FOr the Argument is this Section, there is nothing to any
purpo&s;e &s;ayd to it, but impertinent trifling more then hath
beene an&s;wered before, and &s;hall be an&s;wered afterward. There|fore
for brevities &s;ake I pretermit it. Onely this I tell you Sir,
that though all men in &s;ome degree of Subjection doe now ful|fill
the Text, will they, nill they, Chri&s;t being Lord of all, yet
all cannot bow, yea are not bound to bow at the Name Je&s;us,
as Infants and deafe men, and tho&s;e Nations that never heard
of Je&s;us, and in who&s;e hearts the &s;en&s;e of the name is not writ|ten.
And though <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tome</HI> doe under&s;tand <GAP DESC="foreign"> of all nati|ons,
it makes again&s;t you, for the name Je&s;us doth not con|cerne
all in all nations; yet other Interpreters doe under|&s;tand
<GAP DESC="foreign"> of all things.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>IN this Section I mu&s;t be large, for upon this the whole Que&s;ti|on
dependeth; and we &s;hall &s;ee whether or no it runs out of it
<HI>veines,</HI> as you charge me, or, you in your an&s;wer have not runne
out of your <HI>&s;elfe</HI> and from the <HI>truth.</HI> To let pa&s;&s;e impertinent
things, and railings, and your fal&s;e charging of me, that I de|part
from the &s;en&s;e of the <HI>Oeconomicall kingdome;</HI> I come pre|&s;ently
to the <HI>Argument,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">See Sect. 2.</NOTE> which is briefely this. <HI>Bowing at the
mention of the name Ie&s;us is not the bowing to be performed at the day
of judgement, therefore it is not now commanded in the Text:</HI> The con|&s;equent
you grant, but you deny the antecedent and affirme that
this bowing &s;hall be at the day of judgement.</P>
<P>your charging me with a contradiction is but meere &s;ophi&s;try:
the true bowing &s;hall be there in degree, and at the day of judge|ment
perfectly, but not your bowing; but what is your rea|&s;on
for it? none of any antiquity wrote again&s;t it. A pretty
rea&s;on; how could they write again&s;t it when they never heard
of it? by this rea&s;on any <HI>Heretique</HI> may bring up a new here&s;ie
and plead for him&s;elfe, none before &s;pake again&s;t it. But how
doe you an&s;wer my Rea&s;ons again&s;t it? Fir&s;t I &s;ay there
is no Scripture for it, and it is <HI>impo&s;&s;ible</HI> if it were &s;o, that
<PB N="27" REF="18">
&s;o many cleare <HI>Scriptures</HI> &s;peaking &s;o fully of the <HI>day of judgement</HI>
&s;hould &s;ay nothing of this; but you &s;ay you have more <HI>cleere
Scriptures</HI> for it, than I have again&s;t it, el&s;e you will give up
the cau&s;e.</P>
<P>Sir, you have need indeed to be well advi&s;ed what you deli|ver,
for you make it &s;o nece&s;&s;ary a point of <HI>faith,</HI> that who&s;oever
will not beleeve it, &s;hall mi&s;&s;e <HI>eternall life,</HI> &amp; that who&s;oever will
not now <HI>practi&s;e</HI> it &s;hall be <HI>damned for ever.</HI> For points of <HI>Faith</HI>
and <HI>nece&s;&s;ary wor&s;hip</HI> I mu&s;t have certaine rules from Scripture,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 59. &amp; p. 65.</NOTE>
<HI>P&s;al. 8. 20. Micah 6. 8. Faith</HI> in an <HI>evidence, Heb.</HI> 1. 11. I mu&s;t be &s;o
&s;ure of it, that if an Angell from heaven &s;hould teach other|wi&s;e
to hold him accur&s;ed; you mu&s;t then bring &s;uch &s;ure Scrip|tures
that there mu&s;t be ca&s;t no ju&s;t cau&s;e of doubt, el&s;e you will
bring &s;inne upon all that practi&s;e it, <HI>Rom.</HI> 14. 23. you mu&s;t &s;o
confirme it by Scriptures, as to leave all without excu&s;e, that will
not beleeve it, and practi&s;e it, if you can doe this you carry all,
if not, you overthrow all; for this Section is the hinge of the
Que&s;tion. Now we will peru&s;e your Scriptures: Fir&s;t, you urge
that of <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. on which lyeth the que&s;tion, mo&s;t ridiculous;
The next place is 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 10. 12. but for the tenth Ver&s;e no
name is mentioned at all. And for the twelfth ver&s;e, the words
are the&s;e, <HI>That the name of our Lord Ie&s;us Chri&s;t may be glorified in
you, and you in him.</HI> I an&s;wer, that very good authors, as <HI>Calvin</HI>
and <HI>Marlorate</HI> do under&s;tand it of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> being glorified by us
in an <HI>holy life.</HI> Thus &s;aith <HI>Calvin, Revocat nos, &amp;c.</HI> <Q><HI>Hee calls us
backe to the chiefe end of our life, that we &s;hould &s;erve the Lord of
glory; it is chiefely to be noted that they &s;hall againe bee glorified in
Chri&s;t, who have &s;et forth the glory of Chri&s;t.</HI></Q> This agrees with
the precedent ver&s;e as <HI>Marlorate</HI> on that place well ob&s;erves. And
to this doth <HI>Zanchy</HI> agree, and though hee doe al&s;o allow the
other, and apply it to the day of judgement; yet doth he not
under&s;tand it of any <HI>literall name,</HI> but of the <HI>per&s;on of Chri&s;t,</HI> for
thus he &s;aith. The &s;umme of the&s;e words is this, that <Q><HI>Chri&s;t
&s;hall be glorified in us as the head in the members, when he endueth
us with that glory wherewith him&s;elfe is glorified.</HI></Q> I have proved
Section 1. Fir&s;t, that this phra&s;e, <HI>Name of Ie&s;us,</HI> or <HI>Name of God,</HI>
or <HI>Lord,</HI> doth u&s;ually denote the <HI>power and glory of God;</HI> or Je&s;us
either implicitely or expre&s;ly: And it doth never any where de|note
any <HI>bare title.</HI> Now here is your Argument, <HI>the Lord Ie&s;us
<PB N="28" REF="19">
&s;hall be glorified in the Saints at the day of judgement. Ergo, all ratio|nall
creatures &s;hall bow corporall knees at the name Ie&s;us at that day:</HI> a
very &s;en&s;ele&s;&s;e incon&s;equent: I am very confident that you can|not
bring any orthodox interpreter to under&s;tand that Text
of the literall Name Je&s;us. If it could bee proved, Je&s;us is no
more mentioned there, then Lord and Chri&s;t; and there is
no mention of bowing at any name. Tho&s;e Texts of <HI>I&s;ay</HI> 45. 23.
and <HI>Rom.</HI> 14. 11. though they be to be under&s;tood of the judge|ment,
make nothing for the purpo&s;e. Thus we &s;ee how trimly
Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> hath an&s;wered my fir&s;t rea&s;on.</P>
<P>My &s;econd rea&s;on is this; To what end &s;hall the Name Je&s;us
be named at that day, that all &s;hould bow at the mention of it,
when Chri&s;t &s;hall appeare in his mo&s;t glorious name of power
and glory; when he &s;hall not come as a Je&s;us to the mo&s;t that
&s;hall then bow; but a Lord to all, and &s;o &s;hall all call him?
Here you are very &s;nuffe; as it is u&s;uall with you when your an|&s;wers
are mo&s;t weake, there to bee mo&s;t outragious: you tell
me it is a demand, rather then a di&s;proofe: but di&s;proofes by
que&s;tions as ordinarily mo&s;t vehement; but you here fearefully
wre&s;t my words; for I have not &s;aid that the name Je&s;us &s;hall
not be mentioned at all at that day, but that it &s;hall not be men|tioned
that all &s;hall bow at it, but if I &s;hould have denyed that
the name Je&s;us &s;hall be then mentioned, it is more then you can
prove by any cleare Scriptures; Becau&s;e then you referre mee to
your <GAP DESC="foreign">. wee will examine the Scriptures you there men|tion.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, you bring 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 7. where it is &s;aid <HI>that in that day the
Lord Ie&s;us &s;hall be revealed:</HI> but this is &s;poken of the per&s;on, not
of the literall Name: it is no more but this; Chri&s;t him&s;elfe &s;hall
appeare in judgement; and here the empha&s;is is in the word
<HI>Lord,</HI> being the title of his honour, rather then in <HI>Je&s;us.</HI> Your
&s;econd in&s;tance is 2 <HI>The&s;&s;.</HI> 1. 12. but that is an&s;wered already.
The third place is 2 <HI>Cor.</HI> 1. 14. where <HI>the day of judgement is called
the day of the Lord Ie&s;us,</HI> this is all one with the fir&s;t in&s;tance; up|on
this you de&s;cant, <HI>&s;hall he have a day, and &s;hall he not be menti|oned?</HI>
But it will not follow that becau&s;e the &s;aid day is called
the day of the Lord Je&s;us, that therefore the Name Ie&s;us &s;hall
be mentioned, becau&s;e there is nothing &s;poken of the bare lite|rall
name, but per&s;on. Your next place is <HI>Phil. 2. 10. Every
<PB N="29" REF="19">
tongue &s;hall confe&s;&s;e Je&s;us Chri&s;t to be Lord:</HI> you then fall very fu|riou&s;ly
on them that &s;hall que&s;tion the Name Je&s;us to bee then
mentioned, in this manner? <HI>If they be Schollers, can they be thus igno|rant?
if Divines, be they not infatuated? if both, are they not in con|tempt?</HI>
But &s;oft Sir, better Schollers, better Divines, and wor|thier
men than your &s;elfe cannot nece&s;&s;arily make your conclu|&s;ion
from this place.</P>
<P>The Apo&s;tle &s;peaking here in the <HI>third per&s;on</HI> &s;hewes what &s;hall
be at the day of judgement, and therefore might well &s;peake of
Chri&s;t in his proper name, yet it will not follow thence that
the name Je&s;us &s;hall be then mentioned, when they that &s;hall
then appeare &s;hall not &s;peake in the third per&s;on; but &s;hall &s;peak
to Chri&s;t in the &s;econd per&s;on before his face. But I pray Sir
tell me, if the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> be to be then &s;ounded out, who &s;hall
&s;ound it out? you did once tell me, that the <HI>Trumpe</HI> &s;hould doe
it, but that is ridiculous. Shall <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> him&s;elfe &s;ound it out?
there is no proofe of that. Shall tho&s;e that &s;hall appeare before
him &s;ound it out? there is no proofe of that; there bee &s;undry
Scriptures that they &s;hall call him <HI>Lord,</HI> but not one that they
&s;hall call him <HI>Je&s;us</HI> at that day: So then the <HI>Apo&s;tle</HI> might well
&s;ay &s;peaking of Chri&s;t in the third <HI>per&s;on,</HI> before the day of judg|ment,
that every tongue &s;hall confe&s;&s;e Je&s;us to be Lord at that
day, for in calling him Lord they call Je&s;us Lord, though they
doe not Name the word Je&s;us; As when any Sir to your face
&s;hall call you <HI>Prie&s;t,</HI> it may be ju&s;tly &s;aid, when you are &s;po|ken
of in the third per&s;on, that they called <HI>Thomas Barton
Prie&s;t,</HI> though they named not <HI>Thomas</HI> when they &s;o cal|led
you. So then hee that doubts this &s;ay you, doubts
all, this may ju&s;tly bee doubted, and &s;o all may bee doubted.
But if you could prove this to bee true, as for my part I
will not peremptorily deny it, though there is no cleare
Scripture for it, yet what can you get by this proofe? will
it therefore follow, that all &s;hall bow at the mention of
the Name Je&s;us? This is your Argument or it is nothing at
all, but it is a mad <HI>incon&s;equence.</HI> This con&s;equence, if good, will
make certainly for bowing at the Name <HI>Lord,</HI> which &s;hall then
be mentioned by <HI>confe&s;&s;ion. Chri&s;t</HI> indeed &s;hall bee bowed to by
all as <HI>Lord,</HI> but not at the Name <HI>Lord,</HI> Chri&s;t &s;hall be confe&s;t to
be <HI>Lord,</HI> therefore to him as Lord &s;hall the bowing bee perfor|med,
<PB N="30" REF="20">
if the Text had &s;aid, that every tongue &s;hall confe&s;&s;e the
<HI>Lord Chri&s;t</HI> to be <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> then had <HI>Je&s;us</HI> beene the Name to bee
confe&s;t, but &s;eeing that they &s;hall confe&s;&s;e Je&s;us Chri&s;t to bee
Lord, it is plaine, that Lord is the Name, as being &s;aid, that
all the Subjects in <HI>England</HI> doe confe&s;&s;e <HI>Charles</HI> to be <HI>King,</HI> they
doe not properly now confe&s;&s;e the King to be <HI>Charles,</HI> but <HI>Charles</HI>
to be King. And whereas you returne me to your <GAP DESC="foreign">. Tract.
7. I appeale to the judicious, whether there bee any thing to
the purpo&s;e, or whether that I have here &s;et downe doe not
overthrow all there &s;poken. But whereas you &s;ay <HI>that the con|fe&s;&s;ion
of Je&s;us is the utmo&s;t end in regard of our &s;elves,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 4 12</NOTE> <HI>becau&s;e there
is no other name wherein we &s;hall be &s;aved:</HI> This is nothing to the
Text: For Angels, Devils and Reprobates, that mu&s;t bow as
well as wee, cannot have this end, for it is not a Name to them
for <HI>&s;alvation.</HI> Againe you wre&s;t the &s;aid Text pitifully for your
owne ends, for what orthodox expo&s;itour can you produce to
make <HI>Name</HI> there the literall Name <HI>Je&s;us?</HI> that it is meant of the
per&s;on of our Saviour, the precedent words are plaine.<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Calvin <HI>in</HI> Locum.</NOTE> <Q><HI>Ex|plicatio
e&s;t proximae &s;ententiae,</HI> &amp;c. It is the explication of the
next &s;entence, in Chri&s;t alone is &s;alvation, for by name he un|der&s;tands
the cau&s;e or meane.</Q><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">In part 2. Sect. 1. you &s;ay I &s;lander the Church for gi|ving my judge|ment concer|ning the tran|&s;lation of Phil. 2. 9. but here your &s;elfe alter the tran&s;lation for your owne ends.</NOTE> Againe you tran&s;late <GAP DESC="foreign"> cun|ningly,
and purpo&s;ely to hide your craft. <HI>Wherein</HI> is as much
as <HI>whereby,</HI> and &s;o our la&s;t tran&s;lation reads it, <GAP DESC="foreign"> hath the force
of a Cau&s;all, and if you meane &s;o too, then under&s;tanding Name
for the literall Name Je&s;us, it cannot be avoided but you mu&s;t
make the Name Je&s;us our Saviour, which is flat Idolatry.</P>
<P>Next you fall foule upon my Argument, and tell me that it
is very fal&s;e to &s;ay, that Chri&s;t &s;hall come as a Lord to all, and
not as Je&s;us, and that the &s;imple people are abu&s;ed by my mi&s;|applying
the Text, <HI>Matth.</HI> 25. 37. 44. But that I have neither
abu&s;ed the Text, nor the people, I have made good &s;ufficient|ly;
but that you have done both it is evident to your &s;hame.
But you have not &s;et downe my words right, for I &s;ay thus,
He &s;hall not come as a Je&s;us to all that &s;hall bow. But by two
<HI>rea&s;ons</HI> you will prove that I have mi&s;applyed the Text. The
fir&s;t is by a <HI>Que&s;tion:</HI> Who is Lord, &s;ay you, but Je&s;us? Here you ab|&s;urdly
confound the&s;e two Names, making them all one. I de|ny
not that <HI>Je&s;us</HI> the <HI>per&s;on</HI> is <HI>Lord,</HI> but I deny that the Name
<HI>Je&s;us</HI> is the Name <HI>Lord.</HI> Your &s;econd rea&s;on is, becau&s;e Je&s;us
<PB N="31" REF="20">
being the Saviour of us, is the <HI>confounding Je&s;us</HI> of his, and our
enemies: this is your Argument; <HI>to whom he is not a &s;aving Je|&s;us,
he is a confounding Je&s;us,</HI> &s;o one way hee is a <HI>Je&s;us</HI> to all.
But Sir the name Je&s;us is a &s;aving, not a confounding Name,
and it was given not for Angels, Devils and Reprobates, but
for his people onely, and that for &s;alvation, not for de&s;tructi|on,
all this is plaine from <HI>Matth.</HI> 1. 21. Seeing then you affirme
that the bowing in the Text mu&s;t bee done in the &s;en&s;e of this
Name, the <HI>Angels</HI> cannot bow in the &s;en&s;e of this Name, ex|cept
you will make them <HI>&s;inners;</HI> for <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is a <HI>Saviour</HI> from
&s;inne: much le&s;&s;e can <HI>Devils</HI> and <HI>Reprobates</HI> bow to him in that
&s;en&s;e, except you will have them to be <HI>&s;aved.</HI> Againe it is ut|terly
again&s;t the <HI>Scripture</HI> to hold, that Je&s;us as <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is a con|founder,
for all the while that he was mo&s;t commonly called
by this Name and was in the &s;tate of &s;aving us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Act. 10.</NOTE> <HI>Hee was meeke,
mild;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Luke 9. 56.</NOTE> <HI>went about doing good, would not breake the brui&s;ed Reed, nor
quench the &s;moaking Flax.</HI> When his Di&s;ciples reque&s;ted of him
to command fire from heaven to de&s;troy tho&s;e that would not
receive him, he rebukes them &s;aying, <HI>The Sonne of man is not come
to de&s;troy mens lives, but to &s;ave them;</HI> marke the rea&s;on, he would
not de&s;troy,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Joh. 12. 47.</NOTE> becau&s;e he came to &s;ave. So againe, <HI>If any heare my
words, and beleeve not, I judge him not;</HI> con&s;ider the rea&s;on, for
&s;aith he, <HI>I came not to judge the world, but to &s;ave the world.</HI> You
&s;ee then, he cannot judge or de&s;troy as Je&s;us; &s;alvation and de|&s;truction
are contrary.</P>
<P>If any object, that this was in the time of his humiliation, but
he &s;hall come otherwi&s;e to judgement; I an&s;wer, the &s;en&s;e of the
Name can never be altered, God cannot deny his word; If at any
time &s;alvation be oppo&s;ed to de&s;truction or judgement it is ever
&s;o. The name Je&s;us therefore being an humble, &amp; lowly name (as
you confe&s;&s;e) and a &s;aving name, cannot be the Name in which
he &s;hall come as univer&s;all Judge; but that mu&s;t be a Name of
power and authority over all as I have proved.</P>
<P>But might I grant, as I will not, that Je&s;us is a confounding
Name to &s;ome, yet it cannot be a confounding Name to tho&s;e
nations that never knew him, for the&s;e never offended him in
this name; His Spirit of illumination, they never re&s;i&s;ted, His
Go&s;pel they never rejected, His precious blood they never
trode under their feete. Chri&s;t is an upright Judge, and &s;hall
<PB N="32" REF="21">
come <HI>to recompence every one according to his workes:</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Rom. 26.</NOTE> Now there|fore
it would bee inju&s;tice in Chri&s;t, (which were bla&s;phemy
once to thinke) if he &s;hould de&s;troy them as Je&s;us, again&s;t whom
as Je&s;us they never offended. This is contrary to <HI>Rom. 2. 12. They
that &s;inne without Law, &s;hall perish without Law,</HI> Chri&s;t &s;hall judge
them indeed as <HI>Jehovah,</HI> for the breach of the <HI>Law of nature,</HI>
which he hath written in their hearts, but not as Je&s;us, for &s;o
they never offended him.<NOTE PLACE="marg">De 369. Elo|him, l. c. 3. 3 p. 437.</NOTE> I will bring your owne witne&s;&s;e <HI>Zan|chy</HI>
again&s;t you, <HI>Cau&s;a &V;nica;</HI> <Q>The onely cau&s;e why the
creature boweth knees to God is not becau&s;e he is Judge, or
Mediatour, but onely becau&s;e he is Jehovah, which he pro|veth
from, <HI>Deut. 6. 13. I&s;a. 45. 23. Rom.</HI> 14. 11.</Q> Now let us
briefely &s;umme up all: you have not proved by any cleare Scrip|tures,
that Je&s;us &s;hall be named at the day of judgement; if you
could, it would not follow thence, that bowing &s;hall bee at the
mention of that name. You cannot prove that <HI>In the name</HI> doth
any where &s;ignifie <HI>at the mention of the Name.</HI> Sundry Scriptures
you have wickedly fal&s;ified for it, as I have proved Sect. 4. If
you could prove it from &s;ome Scriptures, yet &s;eeing this phra&s;e
is often u&s;ed, and hath other meaning in other Scriptures, yet
there will be a ju&s;t doubt, whether it be &s;o meant in this place
or no. Then tho&s;e that &s;hall &s;tand to bee judged at that day,
whom you damne to hell for not performing it now, &s;hall
have ju&s;t cau&s;e to plead again&s;t Chri&s;t in this manner; Lord in
all thy other Commandements thou delivered&s;t thy will plaine|ly
unto me, but here in this Text thou ha&s;t delivered it in &s;uch
words as are not agreeable in &s;en&s;e to any part of thy word el&s;e|where;
or &s;o as I could not under&s;tand thy meaning, whether
it were according to thy will, or no; &s;o that becau&s;e I might
ju&s;tly doubt it, I could not practi&s;e it without &s;inning again&s;t
thee; and how derogatory will this be to Chri&s;ts honour that
the judged &s;hall have ju&s;t cau&s;e of exception again&s;t the Judge?
Again, it is again&s;t the Scripture to hold that he &s;hall confound
any in the &s;en&s;e of the name Ie&s;us. It &s;ignifyeth a Saviour, and
&s;o Angels, Devils, and Reprobates cannot bow to him; It is
again&s;t the Scriptures to hold that hee &s;hall confound any as
Ie&s;us, again&s;t whom as Ie&s;us they never &s;inned.</P>
<P>Therefore Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> you have &s;hewed your &s;elfe a <HI>Ma&s;ter
Schi&s;matique</HI> in delivering an opinion that was never knowne
<PB N="33" REF="21">
in the Chri&s;tian world, till you uttered it, making it a nece&s;&s;a|ry
point of faith, threatning the neglect of the practi&s;e of it
with eternall damnation, which you cannot prove by the Scrip|tures,
but is contrary to the Scriptures. Therefore you make
your &s;elfe a very Antichri&s;t in creating new points of faith, and
making Lawes to binde the con&s;cience;<NOTE PLACE="marg">Matth. 23. 8. 10.</NOTE> and therefore
without repentance,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Jam. 4 1.</NOTE> your &s;elfe are liable to damnation. It fol|lowes
then expre&s;&s;ely that all the gay learned &s;tuffe in your <HI>Arn.</HI>
as touching the Que&s;tion is overthrowne, and falls downe upon
your head; your wound is incurable, it cannot be healed, and
if any &s;hall follow your doctrine and practi&s;e, of nece&s;&s;ity wee
&s;hall have a new &s;ect of <HI>Bartoni&s;ts.</HI></P>
<P>But you hold another <HI>Crotchet</HI> as ridiculous as this,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign"> p. 62. 63.</NOTE> <HI>viz.</HI> that
the name Ie&s;us &s;hall to all eternitie be bowed to after the day of
judgement. This you would faine prove from, <HI>Rev.</HI> 22. 4. where
it is &s;aid, <HI>that the Saints &s;hall &s;ee Chri&s;ts face, and his name written
on their foreheads,</HI> and then you &s;ay, wee &s;hall &s;ee it alwayes,
heare it alwayes; but I pray what &s;hew of Text can you bring
that it &s;hall be alwayes heard? it &s;eemes now you make it indiffe|rent
to bow to the name &s;cene as wel as heard, but you are be&s;ides
the Text. The be&s;t expo&s;itors hold that it doth not concerne hea|ven.
Thus &s;aith Ma&s;ter <HI>Brightman</HI> on that place,<Q> they &s;hall en|joy
a clearer vi&s;ion than before,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Zach. 14. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">.</NOTE> yet farre from that which
they &s;hall enjoy in heaven;</Q> and he applyeth the prophe&s;ie of
<HI>Zachary</HI> to the&s;e times.</P>
<P>But grant that it &s;hould bee referred to heaven, yet fir&s;t, It
cannot concerne the &s;tate of glory after the day of judgement,
but before; for Chri&s;ts comming is mentioned after in the 12.
Ver&s;e of this Chapter. Secondly, it is ab&s;urd to take it literally:
If it &s;hould be &s;o, it denotes the name Ie&s;us no more than any
other name, and there is nothing con&s;equent that any bowing
&s;hall be to it: but it is not &s;o. Thus &s;aith Ma&s;ter <HI>Brightman</HI> on
that parallel place, <HI>Rev. 1. 14. You may ob&s;erve that this is no &s;en|&s;ible
&s;igning.</HI> Bowing is &s;ubjection, and Ie&s;us is the name of our
Mediator: this Doctrine will make Chri&s;t Mediator for ever,
contrary to 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. 24. for if we mu&s;t bow to him in heaven
by the name of his Mediator&s;hip, we mu&s;t bow al&s;o by the ver|tue
of his Mediator&s;hip: and &s;o the Saints &s;hall never be in per|fect
bli&s;&s;e, nor the enemies perfectly de&s;troyed. And I pray how
<PB N="32" REF="22">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="33" REF="22">
<GAP DESC="duplicate" EXTENT="1 page">
<PB N="34" REF="23">
&s;hall the devils and damned bow after the day of judgement at
this name, (for if the Saints mu&s;t, they mu&s;t al&s;o) except you
will grant that the name Ie&s;us &s;hall be al&s;o written upon their
foreheads? None ever in this point exceeded &s;o farre in <HI>bla&s;phe|my</HI>
and <HI>ab&s;urditie</HI> as you have done.</P>
<P>You gave a childi&s;h an&s;wer to my third Rea&s;on, for if it bee
no more than corporall bowing at a Name, a childe can per|forme
the like to his father; and &s;o Chri&s;t &s;hould have a weake
kingdome. As for Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes,</HI> I am not the fir&s;t that have
&s;o taken him, as I have &s;et downe, and he is plainely &s;o to bee
taken, (otherwi&s;e there will be no &s;en&s;e in the words) and &s;o be|ing
taken, the con&s;equences that I have noted will directly fol|low.</P>
<P>Though names be <HI>metaphoricall Images,</HI> yet they repre&s;ent the
<HI>Per&s;on</HI> to our under&s;tanding as well as true <HI>Images,</HI> and I &s;uppo&s;e
that if a Iew &s;hould &s;ee you bow to the Name <HI>Jehovah</HI> written
upon a wall (for writing you make all one with mentioning, as
before, and there is no cau&s;e why you &s;hould doe otherwi&s;e by
your interpretation) that he would fling a &s;tone in your face;
and I per&s;wade me, that if a &s;ubject &s;hould bow to the Kings
Name or picture before his face, hee would defie him; and
though we are bound to confe&s;&s;e Chri&s;t according to his word,
yet are we no where commanded to adore a bare Name; which
to doe before Chri&s;ts face, I &s;ay againe, is wor&s;e then Idola|trie.</P>
<P>For the two Arguments in the conclu&s;ion; for the fir&s;t of
them, the minor which you except again&s;t, hath beene proved,
and till that you explaine how the <HI>Marginall note</HI> failes in your
accu&s;ation you are an&s;wered.</P>
<P>For the &s;econd Argument; The denied <HI>Major</HI> hath beene
&s;ufficiently proved, and &s;o doth <HI>Calvin</HI> te&s;tifie for me, where
he &s;aith expre&s;&s;ely that all things are now in &s;ubjection,<NOTE PLACE="marg">On Phil. 2. 9.</NOTE> though
the Subjection &s;hall not be perfect till the day of judgement.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. IX.</HEAD>
<P>I Say here that this expo&s;ition makes <HI>di&s;paritie</HI> of wor&s;hip be|tweene
the <HI>per&s;ons of the Trinitie,</HI> contrary to <HI>John</HI> 5. 23. there|fore
<PB N="35" REF="23">
it is fal&s;e: you &s;ay it doth not make di&s;paritie: the maine
eva&s;ion you have here is your conceit, that the Name Ie&s;us is
in it &s;elfe the <HI>e&s;&s;entiall name of God;</HI> but made <HI>proper</HI> to the Sonne
by <HI>di&s;pen&s;ation.</HI> But if you could prove that <HI>God</HI> in his e&s;&s;ence
was ever called <HI>Je&s;us</HI> (which you cannot prove) there might be
&s;ome &s;hew for you; but yet this is nothing, for whether it be
<HI>proper</HI> to the Sonne in it &s;elfe, or by <HI>di&s;pen&s;ation,</HI> or <GAP DESC="foreign">, per|taines
not to the que&s;tion, but whether it be proper or no; that
it is proper, you cannot deny. Then it will follow that to per|forme
a dutie to a name <HI>properly</HI> denoting the <HI>Sonne,</HI> and not
doing the like to the <HI>Fathers proper name, is honouring the Sonne a|bove
the Father:</HI> It is a mon&s;trous errour to &s;ay that Ie&s;us is the
<HI>e&s;&s;entiall name of God.</HI> Hence it will follow, that <HI>God</HI> had his
<HI>e&s;&s;ence</HI> becau&s;e of mans &s;inne; and that if man had not &s;inned
God had not beene: a mo&s;t <HI>Bla&s;phemous,</HI> and yet <HI>inevitable con&s;e|quence.</HI>
Therefore Sir, prove this, or all that you &s;ay in this
Section is but <HI>babling:</HI> for by this conceit you an&s;wer all.</P>
<P>I have not &s;landered you in &s;aying that by the word <GAP DESC="foreign">
you under&s;tood <HI>a truene&s;&s;e</HI> of <HI>wor&s;hip,</HI> and not every way an <HI>equall
corre&s;pondencie:</HI> you have affirmed it &s;undry times, and once at a
table, when our maine di&s;pute was about the word <GAP DESC="foreign">. In
my reply I have not changed the principle, but you have runne
your &s;elfe into a <HI>contradiction;</HI> for whereas you hold it indiffe|rent
to bow at any name of the <HI>Trinity</HI> if wee plea&s;e; then you
pre&s;ently &s;ay that our not bowing at the name of the Father,
nor at the name of the Sonne, nor at the Name of the Holy
Gho&s;t, but at the name of Ie&s;us, &s;hewes that they being three
one to another, but one in them&s;elves, and that our &s;alvation
was wrought <HI>equally</HI> by them three, onely terminated in the Son;
for by giving toleration above &s;pecified you overthrow this de|mon&s;trative
end which you &s;et downe, and this rea&s;on is but a
Phanta&s;ie of your braine without proofe.</P>
<P>Whereas in my reply to the &s;econd an&s;wer, I affirme that you
cannot per&s;onally bow to <HI>all the per&s;ons</HI> at the name Ie&s;us: be|cau&s;e
the di&s;tinct names of any one per&s;on doe not per&s;onally
denominate the other per&s;ons; and therefore if you &s;ay, that
you bow per&s;onally to every per&s;on at the Name Ie&s;us, you
confound the per&s;ons. You tell me that a <HI>father</HI> is a <HI>father</HI> one|ly
in re&s;pect of his <HI>&s;onne,</HI> and &s;o is a <HI>&s;onne</HI> in re&s;pect of the <HI>fa|ther:</HI>
<PB N="36" REF="24">
but yet though a father hath reference to the &s;onne, and a
&s;onne to the father, yet is not one the other, and what is done
to the one, is not done per&s;onally to the other; as if you bow
to the <HI>King</HI> you doe not by the &s;ame act bow to the <HI>Prince.</HI> And
when I &s;ay, I beleeve in God the Father, I profe&s;&s;e my faith in
the Sonne e&s;&s;entially, and &s;o I doe in the Father, when I
&s;ay I beleeve in God the Sonne. In that you &s;ay that I
am a Triformian, for affirming that every per&s;on is in one
Divine e&s;&s;ence,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Catech. p. 155.</NOTE> is but one of <HI>Thomas Bartons</HI> bald Crot|chets,
for hereby I acknowledge but one divine e&s;&s;ence to all the
Per&s;ons. Divines doe ordinarily &s;ay &s;o. As <HI>&V;r&s;inus, In una
dei E&s;&s;entia;</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">De Trinitate l. 8. c. 6. p. 3 58.</NOTE> <HI>in one e&s;&s;ence of God three per&s;ons doe &s;ub&s;i&s;t. Zanchy</HI> al|&s;o
&s;hall witnes again&s;t you, <HI>Tres per&s;onae una &amp; eadem con&s;tant e&s;&s;en|tia</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>See</HI> Aretius loco 7. de Deo, &amp; Bucanus, loco 1. de Tri|nitate.</NOTE>.
And I mu&s;t tell you Sir, in that you &s;ay that every <HI>per&s;on</HI>
is honoured alike <HI>per&s;onally,</HI> at the name Je&s;us you overthrow
the Text of <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. for as <HI>the Name there above every Name</HI> (as it
is evident) is proper onely to the <HI>&s;econd per&s;on,</HI> becau&s;e he is one|ly
<HI>Mediatour</HI> and <HI>&s;olely incarnate,</HI> &s;o the bowing in the Text is
due to him alone di&s;tinctly, and <HI>per&s;onally;</HI> for by the &s;ame rea&s;on
if we mu&s;t bow to the <HI>Son</HI> together with the <HI>Father,</HI> and the <HI>Ho|ly
Gho&s;t</HI> per&s;onally by this Text, it will follow that they were
incarnate, and mediators, and &s;hall come to judgement as well
as the &s;econd <HI>per&s;on.</HI> To conclude, this an&s;wer doth fully over|throw
that place of <HI>Joh.</HI> 5. 23. for out of que&s;tion <HI>our Saviour</HI> in|tends
there a <HI>di&s;tinction of per&s;ons,</HI> and &s;o a di&s;tinction of the <HI>Sonnes
honour,</HI> el&s;e he &s;hould have &s;poken <HI>ob&s;curely</HI> and to no purpo&s;e: for
if there be not a <HI>di&s;tinction of wor&s;hip</HI> there required, but that
the <HI>Per&s;on of the Father</HI> mu&s;t be nece&s;&s;arily honoured in the <HI>per&s;on
of the Sonne</HI> without di&s;tinction; then there can be no <HI>compari|&s;on</HI>
made betweene the <HI>honour</HI> of the one and the other, and &s;o
our Saviour &s;hould confound his owne rule; for it could not
be knowne whether the Sonne be honoured as the Father is ho|noured,
or no.</P>
<P>For my two Arguments in the end, which you call <HI>Syllo|gi&s;mes</HI>
(though I note neither major, minor, nor conclu&s;ion,
neither is any bound to rea&s;on alwayes from direct Syllogi&s;|mes)
the one is drawne from the <HI>Premi&s;es,</HI> in which you &s;ay
there are 4. <HI>Termini</HI> (whereby you wrong me, but indeed <HI>your
Syllogi&s;mes</HI> are nothing el&s;e, but <HI>equivocatious</HI> and <HI>&s;ophi&s;try)</HI> in|deed
<PB N="37" REF="24">
I make two oppo&s;ite inferences in the &s;ame for brevities
&s;ake, which none but <HI>Cavaliers</HI> will blame. The la&s;t argument is
taken from the <HI>e&s;&s;ence,</HI> which to plea&s;e you &s;hall be this <HI>Syllogi&s;me.</HI></P>
<P>Every honour of the Sonne equall to the honour of the Fa|ther,
is &s;o to honour the Sonne in the Father as the Father is
honoured in the Sonne.</P>
<P>But to honour the Father by bowing at the name of the Son,
and not to honour the Son by bowing at the name of the Fa|ther,
is not &s;o to honour the Son in the Father, as the Father is
honoured in the Sonne. <HI>Ergo,</HI> This honour is not an equall ho|nour.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. X.</HEAD>
<P>NO marvell if you be not plea&s;ed with my Argument, &s;eeing
you are not plea&s;ed with your owne Syllogi&s;me which
you put in &s;tead of mine. My argument would have &s;erved a
rea&s;onable man, &s;eeing you de&s;ire full Syllogi&s;mes, I will not
be beholding to you, but will reduce the arguments into two
Syllogi&s;mes, &s;eeing it cannot be &s;o well contained in one.</P>
<P>No unju&s;t or cruell command is Gods command. But to command all
creatures to bow at the name Je&s;us is a cruell and unju&s;t command.
<HI>Ergo,</HI> this command is not Gods.</P>
<P>The minor is thus proved.</P>
<P>Every command that enjoynes that to be done by any that have no crea|ted
power to performe it, is a cruell and unju&s;t command. But to com|mand
bowing at the Name Je&s;us injoyneth that to be done by many of the
creatures, that have no created power to performe it. Ergo this is a cruell
command, and &s;o not Gods.</P>
<P>No rea&s;onable man that compares your An&s;wer to the Argu|ment
cannot but &s;ay but that your An&s;wer is extreamely frivo|lous.
Fir&s;t, you make an objection which I told you I meant
to prevent, God indeed may require where hee gives no <HI>&s;peciall
grace,</HI> but not if he had given no <HI>created power.</HI></P>
<P>Many things here babled have beene an&s;wered before, which
I now pretermit for brevities &s;ake.</P>
<P>To my que&s;tion, how <HI>divels,</HI> and <HI>damned &s;oules</HI> &s;hall bow at
the name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> you &s;huffle in your an&s;wer mo&s;t pitifully, fir&s;t
<PB N="38" REF="25">
you &s;ay, <HI>Devills</HI> &s;hall bow, as they confe&s;&s;e: Though they cal|led
him Ie&s;us, yet you prove not that they then made a court|&s;ie.
I acknowledge the Devills &s;hall tremble; yet that trembling
is not that kind of bowing you under&s;tand here; for you make
it an act of Religion, or at lea&s;t a religious ceremony. But you
&s;ay they &s;hall tremble mo&s;t of all at the Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> wherein
they are conquered: but what meane you by <HI>wherein</HI> here? if you
meane <HI>whereby</HI> as a <HI>cau&s;e,</HI> as you mu&s;t &s;o meane, el&s;e it is <HI>non&s;en&s;e,</HI>
then you make the <HI>literall name</HI> to <HI>conquer</HI> them, which is <HI>Bla&s;phe|my,</HI>
and <HI>Idolatry.</HI> No marvaile if &s;uch as you be, put all Religi|on
in bowing at the name Je&s;us, &s;eeing you thinke to conquer
the Devils by it. Sir, you call this name an hony name, an hum|ble
name, a poore name, Pag. 2. Sect. 2. how &s;hall they tremble
rather at this &s;weet name, this humble name, then at the power|full
and terrible Name Jehovah? It cannot &s;inke into the braines
of them that have but common rea&s;on to conceive it. And &s;ure|ly
the Devils be fooles as long as they have liberty to walke too,
and fro, if ever they come to Church; for in thinking to con|found
others they confound them&s;elves; for if once they heare
<HI>Je&s;us</HI> named they mu&s;t fall flat upon their faces for feare, as
you &s;ay, which confu&s;ion they might avoyd if they come not
at <HI>devotions;</HI> for if they doe, then woe be to them. And then
they might alwayes avoyd trembling; for them&s;elves need not
name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> except they will at any time. How &s;hould they bee
forced to name it? If their naming Je&s;us be their torment, they
are mad, if they torment them&s;elves when they may choo&s;e For
my in&s;tance in <HI>damned &s;oules,</HI> how they &s;hould bow at the Name
Je&s;us in <HI>Hell,</HI> &s;eeing there is no <HI>divine &s;ervice in Hell;</HI> and the&s;e
men hold that it is not nece&s;&s;ary for any of us, but at &s;uch a
time; we may &s;ay they, if we will, bow at other times, but then
we mu&s;t, becau&s;e the Church commands it; and &s;eeing there
is nothing in hell but bla&s;phemy, and the&s;e hold that when
men &s;weare by Je&s;us, which is nothing &s;o bad as the <HI>Damned
bla&s;pheming;</HI> it is no &s;ea&s;on to bow, you here cannot tell how
to an&s;wer, but are intangled in the briars; and therefore cry
out of bla&s;phemy: but Sir, it is plaine bla&s;phemy in you, as
will be proved: but at length you &s;ay that bowing and bla&s;phe|ming
will con&s;i&s;t. They &s;hall bla&s;pheme, &s;ay you, becau&s;e they
cannot choo&s;e but bow; what prepo&s;terous foppery is here? On
<PB N="39" REF="25">
earth you bow, becau&s;e you mention Je&s;us; in hell they &s;hall
bla&s;pheme, becau&s;e they &s;hall bow: &s;o it &s;eemes that bowing
&s;hall cau&s;e the bla&s;phemy; but I wot, Sir, that they &s;hall bla&s;|pheme
by the name; they mu&s;t fir&s;t then bla&s;pheme, how el&s;e
&s;hall they bow? Their bowing you make to bee their horrour,
and trembling, in lying flat on their faces, and crouching
downe under the name Je&s;us, as you doe the Devils: if this bee
&s;o, then &s;urely they may e&s;cape torment if they will. If the
name Je&s;us torment them, it mu&s;t bee by mentioning, for &s;o
you under&s;tand the Text: but what need they mention it? If
they doe not mention it <HI>alwayes,</HI> which were ab&s;urditie to grant,
then are they not <HI>tormented alwayes;</HI> and if they be not compel|led
to mention it alwayes, they bee <HI>never compelled to doe it;</HI> if
they be not compelled to it, what neede they doe it? and if they
neede not doe it, what need they be <HI>tormented;</HI> &s;eeing they bee
tormented at the Name, as the&s;e men &s;ay? Yea if they &s;hould
mention the name never &s;o oft by bla&s;phemy, in hell, how
&s;hould they <HI>fulfill the Text,</HI> &s;eeing the&s;e men hold it not nece&s;&s;a|ry
for us to fulfill the Text, but at publique devotion on the
Lords dayes, though we may, &s;ay they, at other devotions? See|ing
then the damned are not bound to Lords dayes, and have
no publike devotions, how &s;hall they fulfill the Text, and then
how &s;hall they be damned, &s;eeing their fulfilling the Text is by
their damnation? Happy damned, if this Doctrine were true:
The Pope was wont to deliver the &s;oules out of purgatory for
mony, but the&s;e will deliver the damned out of hell for no|thing.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XI.</HEAD>
<P>VVHerein I &s;hew that this expo&s;ition will bring the &s;ervice of
God into bondage, in making us to performe it at every mans
will, therefore it is a fal&s;e expo&s;ition; the con&s;equent I prove from
<HI>Gal.</HI> 5. 1. but you will have that place under&s;tood of the <HI>Doctrine
of Ju&s;tification by the Law;</HI> which though it be one thing, yet to
ob&s;erve ceremonies for <HI>con&s;cience &s;ake</HI> is another, as appeareth
from <HI>Gal. 4. 10. You ob&s;erve dayes, and monthes, and times, and yeares;</HI>
and this is your ca&s;e that are an <HI>ob&s;erver of times,</HI> making the</P>
<P><PB N="40" REF="26">
<HI>time</HI> of naming Je&s;us <HI>e&s;pecially</HI> holy for <HI>adoration.</HI> The Text is
again&s;t all <HI>bondage</HI> in wor&s;hip: if we be free from the bondage of
the <HI>ceremoniall commanded wor&s;hip,</HI> much le&s;&s;e &s;hould we come into
bondage by any <HI>new traditions.</HI> Your an&s;wer is as much to the
purpo&s;e as <HI>&s;now</HI> for <HI>harve&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>It is not <HI>worth</HI> a reply, it comes not neere the <HI>matter;</HI> you have
an&s;wered nothing to the <HI>in&s;tance;</HI> that every command in Scrip|ture
limited to a time binds ordinarily to that time; you can|not
produce any exception; and then if this be a command to
bow at the Name of Je&s;us, it mu&s;t be a command to binde when|&s;oever
it &s;ounds: and it is not in the Power of all the world to
alter, dimini&s;h, or limit any of Gods unlimited commands;
therefore I &s;ay that your rule of affirmative precepts cannot hold
in this place. And this here is not an&s;wered, Sect. 5. as you &s;ay.
Doctor <HI>Page</HI> his in&s;tance of Prayer, 1 <HI>The&s;.</HI> 5. is taken indefi|nitely,
Pray continually, <HI>i. e.</HI> every day, or at every occa&s;ion: but
as you under&s;tand this Text, the determinate time pre&s;ent is &s;et
downe when to bow, but you &s;ay it is to bee done at times of
confe&s;&s;ing, which is in time of Divine Service. But I hope Sir,
that Devils and damned in hell doe not ob&s;erve times of con|fe&s;&s;ion,
nor divine &s;ervice, which bow as well as we. But Sir, as
you expound the Text, <HI>confe&s;&s;ion</HI> doth not regulate the <HI>time of
bowing,</HI> for <HI>the name Je&s;us doth that,</HI> and al&s;o the time of con|fe&s;&s;ion,
for bowing and confe&s;&s;ion are connected by a conjun|ction
copulative, and the &s;ea&s;on of bowing and confe&s;&s;ion both
are &s;et downe to be at the mentioning of the Name Je&s;us, &s;o that
it will follow if this <HI>interpretation</HI> bee true, when&s;oever Je&s;us is
named, you mu&s;t both bow and confe&s;&s;e, and &s;o Je&s;us being na|med
at every confe&s;&s;ion will call for bowing, and confe&s;&s;ion for
ever. Therefore this <HI>expa&s;ition</HI> drawing with it &s;uch an <HI>unavoy|dable
ab&s;urdity,</HI> cannot bee <HI>Gods command.</HI> I cannot chu&s;e but
&s;mile to &s;ee you who before under&s;tood this bowing, of the <HI>ex|pre&s;&s;e
corporall knees,</HI> now being caught in the Briars here, to un|&s;tand
it of the <HI>Tongue.</HI> When men abu&s;e the Name, &s;ay
you, then the Text is fulfilled by reproving or avoyding the
company.</P>
<P>The <HI>damned</HI> would thanke you, if when they heare their fel|lowes
bla&s;pheme, you could &s;hew them a way how to avoyd
their <HI>company.</HI> And &s;eeing the Text concernes all, by this
<PB N="41" REF="26">
meanes you make the <HI>Devills</HI> to reprove &s;inne, and the <HI>damned</HI>
rebuke their fellowes when they bla&s;pheme. But how doe you
an&s;wer my in&s;tance of the third Commmandement? for that
binds to inward reverence at <HI>all times and places,</HI> when we men|tion
any of <HI>Gods titles:</HI> If externall reverence at the Name Je&s;us
be al&s;o <HI>Gods command,</HI> why &s;hould it not doe the like? This is
your an&s;wer, in the very performance of this one duty (marke
this in the very performance, that is, <HI>(ip&s;o facto)</HI> is expre&s;&s;ed <HI>our
performance of the fir&s;t Table, our faithfull acknowledgement of the
true God, and humble wor&s;hipping of him: a reverend u&s;age of his ho|ly
name, and &s;anctifying his Sabbath in due obedience;</HI> but you
might as well have put in the &s;econd Table too, and then it
would have beene Catholike obedience indeed; but I beleeve the
fir&s;t Table was ob&s;erved before this foppery was devi&s;ed, and I
know that for the mo&s;t part, the &s;tricte&s;t ob&s;ervers of this cere|mony
are as prophane per&s;ons, as any alive. And then &s;urely
the Devills and damned doe performe the fir&s;t Table too, for
they mu&s;t performe the &s;ame injuction.</P>
<P>To my la&s;t in&s;tance, that this expo&s;ition will draw out bow|ing,
and confe&s;&s;ion to all <HI>perpetuitie,</HI> that they &s;hall never be en|ded.
You an&s;wer me by Ma&s;ter <HI>Pryn,</HI> whom in <HI>&s;corne</HI> you call
<HI>my confe&s;&s;or,</HI> that makes uncovering the head a dutie in the fir&s;t
of <HI>Cor.</HI> 11. 4. which will not captivate us: no more doth this (&s;ay
you) but there is great difference betweene reverence in Gods
hou&s;e and bowing the knees every time Je&s;us is named, from this
Text: for this will breed an unavoidable &s;lavery; which cannot
tend to the <HI>Glory</HI> but di&s;honour of <HI>God:</HI> What is objected be&s;ides
is an&s;wered already.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XII.</HEAD>
<P>MY Argument here is this, <HI>that this expo&s;ition doth eclip&s;e the
glory of Chri&s;ts kingdome, therefore it is fal&s;e:</HI> The antecedent
I prove divers wayes. Fir&s;t, the true expo&s;ition amplifieth
Chri&s;ts honour in the&s;e words, <HI>God gave him a name,</HI> as I in&s;tance
in that parallel place, <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 21. and as it is alluded to by the
<HI>Type, Dan.</HI> 2. 48. but the other expo&s;ition doth rather dimini&s;h
Chri&s;t Glory, for it attributes to him a Name di&s;tinct from
<PB N="42" REF="27">
<HI>power</HI> and <HI>Authority.</HI> Fir&s;t, you deny that <HI>Ephe&s;.</HI> 1. 21. is a paral|lel
place, but &s;o you deny the <HI>judgement</HI> of the be&s;t <HI>expo&s;itours</HI>
who do parallel them together; and that <HI>Dan.</HI> 2. 48. in the type is
al&s;o parallel to this place &amp; Text, I appeale to any that are <HI>judici|ous,</HI>
and you have not di&s;proved it but by your deniall. Becau&s;e
I expound Name for <HI>univer&s;all dominion,</HI> you tell me, that no|thing
takes me <HI>but dominion and dignitie, but it is a name of mercy
that God mo&s;t delighteth in, if we will have &s;alvation, &s;ay you. Power
mu&s;t be powred forth in mercy;</HI> But what is all this to this Text?
any thing &s;hall take me agreeable with it, but the fanta&s;ie of
your braine &s;hall not take me: you calling Name in this Text
a name of mercy, you apply it to the elect onely; but the name
here concernes the Devils and reprobates al&s;o, your &s;elfe being
Judge. Therefore, if you will have this name in it &s;elfe to bee
a Name of mercy, you mu&s;t make Chri&s;t to &s;hew mercy to De|vils
and Reprobates, or el&s;e you mu&s;t deny that they bow. This
I &s;ay, the Name in the Text is a name of <HI>&s;upreame authoritie</HI> over
all, denoting Chri&s;t to be King of Kings, and Lord of Lords;
but you affirme that the Name Je&s;us doth include the&s;e and all
other <HI>glorious titles.</HI> See how wayward you be; before, all the
&s;tirre was about <HI>&s;ignification,</HI> and now you talke of <HI>inclu&s;ion:</HI>
but I deny that the name Je&s;us as a Name, being as you call it, <HI>a
Name of povertie and humilitie,</HI> and communicated to others, doth
properly include in it the name King of Kings; why according
to my &s;tating the que&s;tion, which I have proved to bee accor|ding
to the Text, and other corre&s;pondent Scriptures, you
&s;hould lay to my charge, <HI>that I goe about to make the world beleeve
that Chri&s;t redeemed us by a powerfull hand, but not by price, and that
Chri&s;ts &s;ufferings were to confirme his Doctrine, and not to &s;anctifie us
by his blood,</HI> I know not, except you meane this Text concerneth
Chri&s;ts redeeming us by his blood, and then, as I &s;aid, you
mu&s;t make Chri&s;t to redeeme the Devils, and then by your <HI>Do|ctrine,</HI>
you mu&s;t make Chri&s;t to &s;uffer againe, and redeeme us
when he comes in his mo&s;t <HI>glorious kingdome:</HI> and &s;o whereas you
&s;ay I looke like a <HI>Socinian,</HI> certaine I am you looke more
like <HI>an Antichri&s;tian.</HI> To my &s;econd rea&s;on you confe&s;&s;e
Chri&s;t Lord of every creature: and thus you contradict
your &s;elfe: for &s;o the &s;ubjection mu&s;t bee of every creature,
here implyed by bowing the knee. Seeing then many <HI>crea|tures</HI>
<PB N="43" REF="27">
cannot doe their dutie as you under&s;tand the Text, in this
&s;en&s;e he cannot be Lord of every <HI>creature.</HI> The re&s;idue is an&s;we|red
abundantly before.</P>
<P>To my third rea&s;on I have &s;hewed at large, Sect. 3. that you
under&s;tanding the Text <HI>literally</HI> cannot under&s;tand it <HI>figuratively:</HI>
For my part I deny not the <HI>knee,</HI> but I grant it not in a literall
way, and &s;hall yeeld it according to the <HI>true meaning of the Text,</HI>
but not according to your <HI>fancy;</HI> but here you contradict your
&s;elfe, for you will have <HI>knees</HI> and <HI>hearts</HI> bow together, there|fore
you under&s;tand the Text figuratively: And &s;eeing you joyne
them together at the Name <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> why did you &s;ever them in
conference with me, whether you gave the heart or no I cannot
tell, &s;ure I am, you did not give the knee; if you did give the
heart, by your doctrine you &s;hould have given the knee, if the
inward bowing were then nece&s;&s;ary, why not the outward?
Dr. <HI>Page</HI> making this bowing a ceremony di&s;tinct from a &s;ub|&s;tantiall
dutie, I affirme makes it but a poore honour, and ad|vancement
to Chri&s;t after his great &s;ufferings; and if it bee a
ceremony to us, it is a ceremony to all other creatures, which
you deny, the &s;ame being injoyned to all. And if, as you &s;ay,
many creatures come not within compa&s;&s;e of <HI>Religious wor&s;hip,</HI>
it is plaine <HI>Religious wor&s;hip</HI> is not &s;imply here injoyned; But if
you give the ceremonies, and not the &s;ub&s;tance, it is not pro|perly
Religious wor&s;hip; And &s;o this bowing is but a mocking
of Chri&s;t; and if it be ceremony to us and not to other <HI>creatures,</HI>
as you affirmed; I pray, what is it to <HI>Devils</HI> and <HI>Reprobates?</HI> if it
be not a <HI>ceremony</HI> to them it is <HI>&s;ub&s;tantiall,</HI> it mu&s;t be one of them,
and what will follow hence? Tho&s;e to whom Chri&s;t is a <HI>de|&s;troyer</HI>
mu&s;t performe the &s;ub&s;tance; and you that &s;ay you bow,
becau&s;e of <HI>&s;alvation,</HI> give but a ceremony. You be thankefull pee|ces
indeed for &s;uch a great mercy, that the Devils &s;hall doe more
for <HI>Damnation,</HI> then you for <HI>&s;alvation.</HI></P>
<P>To my fourth rea&s;on, whereas I &s;ay, the Text truely under|&s;tood
enjoyns the bowing to <HI>all times and places,</HI> continually, but
the other makes it to be done but one day of the weeke ordina|rily;
and then al&s;o but now and then. In your an&s;wer there is
a manife&s;t contradiction, for fir&s;t you &s;ay, <HI>The Text enjoynes it not
to all times and places,</HI> which indeed is no better then bla&s;phemy,
and then you pre&s;ently &s;ay <HI>the whole man ought ever to &s;ubmit to
<PB N="44" REF="28">
Chri&s;t:</HI> how can this agree together? For if this continuall &s;ub|mi&s;&s;ion
be grounded upon the Text, then I pray, how doe you
limit it the mention of the name Je&s;us, when al&s;o no mention
of the Name doth binde you to bow, but on Lords dayes? I
would faine know of you whether <HI>Devils</HI> by the Text be not al|wayes
&s;ubject to Chri&s;t, or onely then when Je&s;us is named. If
their <HI>&s;ubjection</HI> be alwayes to be done; then it is fal&s;e to tie it
to the name onely. If at the name onely, as it mu&s;t be &s;o, &s;ee|ing
you apply it &s;o to us, &s;ee then what will <HI>nece&s;&s;arily follow.</HI> If
the <HI>Devils</HI> be not alwayes &s;ubject to Chri&s;t by this Text, then
hath not Chri&s;t <HI>Authoritie and power</HI> over them <HI>continually;</HI> for
Chri&s;ts authoritie, and the Creatures &s;ubjection are relatives.
It will follow then that &s;o long as they be not &s;ubject, they bee
Lords. There is but one Lord, and Chri&s;t is hee; but Satan
&s;trives to be Lord, and certainely, if Chri&s;t &s;hould ever cea&s;e to
be Lord, <HI>Satan</HI> gaines it; and as long as he is not in <HI>&s;ubjection</HI>
he is <HI>Lord:</HI> hee mu&s;t be Lord or in &s;ubjection, he cannot be no|thing
at all, and in no relation; &s;ee then the whole con&s;e|quence
of this Doctrine; the Devill &s;hall be Lord all the weeke,
and he &s;hall not need to bow but the <HI>Lords dayes,</HI> for then one|ly
we are bound to bow &s;ay they, (except they will have the
devils to doe more &s;ervice then wee) but wee need not then till
Je&s;us be named. So it followes that <HI>Satan</HI> &s;hall be Lord all our
time, and <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> &s;hal be Lord but two or three minutes in a week,
is not this &s;ound Doctrine? and then the <HI>Devils</HI> mu&s;t be tied to
come to Church; for if they be not tied they are <HI>fooles</HI> to come
thither; to be &s;ubject with horrour, when they might bee at
their owne <HI>libertie;</HI> or el&s;e they mu&s;t &s;et up a Church of their
owne, and choo&s;e a <HI>Prie&s;t</HI> to &s;ay <HI>Service;</HI> or el&s;e upon
the&s;e mens grounds how &s;hall they ever be &s;ubject at all? For if
the dutie of the <HI>Text,</HI> as the&s;e men &s;ay, be not &s;ea&s;onable but in
times of <HI>devotion,</HI> then are not <HI>Devils</HI> capable of <HI>&s;ubjection</HI> at all,
except they will make them <HI>religious</HI> and <HI>devout;</HI> well then, if
the Devils mu&s;t bow, but when the&s;e men doe; it will follow
that when <HI>Satan</HI> is not over-ruled he will rule; when he is not in
&s;ubjection, hee will command; no marvaile then if the&s;e men
generally live &s;uch <HI>&s;candalous lives,</HI> for would not you have
their lives agree with their doctrine? They teach it, they make
Satan <HI>Lord</HI> over them, to rule them all the weeke; but Chri&s;t
<PB N="45" REF="28">
&s;hall be their Lord but two or three minutes on the Lords day;
yea they teach this doctrine in re&s;pect of <HI>them&s;elves,</HI> for if the
<HI><GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1+ letters">owing of the knee,</HI> let them take <HI>&s;oule-knees</HI> too if they will, be limi|ted
<HI>to the naming of Je&s;us,</HI> then by this Text they are not bound
to bow either body or &s;oule at any other time <HI>be&s;ides.</HI> Chri&s;t
indeed &s;hould be a <HI>proper King</HI> by this Doctrine to have com|mand
of his <HI>&s;ubjects</HI> a fit or two on the <HI>Lords day,</HI> and all their
time el&s;e to be at their <HI>owne command,</HI> and at the command of his
<HI>utter enemy.</HI></P>
<P>To my fift proofe, when I &s;ay, <HI>this doctrine depriveth Chri&s;t of
his true &s;ubjects, and forceth upon him the members of Antichri&s;t,</HI> you
an&s;wer how can this be? can any plucke his out of his hands?
No Sir, it cannot be, but you teach it, for &s;eeing you damne all
to hell, that will not ob&s;erve your <HI>command;</HI> by this meanes
you damne to hell the <HI>French Churches,</HI> the <HI>Scoti&s;h,</HI> the <HI>Nether|land
Churches,</HI> and all other <HI>Churches</HI> and <HI>Per&s;ons</HI> what&s;oever that
obey you not: and I hope Sir, <HI>Churches</HI> that mu&s;t be <HI>damned</HI> are
not <HI>true Churches;</HI> and <HI>helhounds</HI> are not <HI>Chri&s;ts faithfull &s;ubjects:</HI>
yea you will have none to be &s;aved but your owne <HI>faction:</HI> But I
&s;uppo&s;e that if &s;ome <HI>Pagan</HI> &s;hould conver&s;e a while in <HI>England,</HI>
and &s;hould &s;ee the <HI>deportment</HI> of the&s;e <HI>Cringers,</HI> that pretend they
practi&s;e it for <HI>con&s;cience &s;ake,</HI> and &s;hould compare them with
tho&s;e that for con&s;cience &s;ake refu&s;e it, that like the <HI>American
&s;avage,</HI> whom a Fryer came to in&s;truct at his death, if he &s;hould
be told that the&s;e cringers goe to heaven, and the other to hell,
would choo&s;e to goe to hell with the&s;e, then to heaven with
tho&s;e cringers.</P>
<P>That none &s;hould write again&s;t your opinion till <HI>T. C.</HI> I &s;up|po&s;e
you meane Mr. <HI>Cartright,</HI> is extreamely fal&s;e.</P>
<P>That ancient and moderne Divines agree with you it becomes
none but Mr. <HI>Barton,</HI> and &s;uch as he is, to affirme: You cannot
bring any one <HI>Orthodox Father</HI> &s;o to under&s;tand the Text. And for
Moderne Divines, generally all Expo&s;itors that are <HI>Prote&s;tants</HI>
write again&s;t you: Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes</HI> was the fir&s;t Prote&s;tant Di|vine
that ever made it a dutie of the text, and the be&s;t learned
and pious in England have beene and are generally <HI>again&s;t it.</HI>
And though perhaps &s;ome very learned men might through the
<HI>iniquity of the times</HI> yeeld to the practi&s;e of it, yet I &s;uppo&s;e few
in their <HI>judgement</HI> held it by the Text.</P>
<P><PB N="46" REF="29">
To my la&s;t rea&s;on, <HI>that it depriveth Chri&s;t of his Glory at the day of
judgement;</HI> &s;eeing, fir&s;t, it puts no difference betweene Chri&s;ts king|dome
<HI>inchoate,</HI> and <HI>made perfect.</HI> And &s;econdly, becau&s;e it will make
the full &s;ubjection of every creature to con&s;i&s;t onely in a ceremo|ny
di&s;tinct from a &s;ub&s;tantiall dutie as Doctor <HI>Page</HI> calls it, and
to be the &s;ole performance at that day, when Chri&s;t &s;hall come
to be fully glorified by all his creatures; You &s;ay nothing to it
but what you &s;ay el&s;ewhere, and I &s;ay againe, &s;o to hold is flat
bla&s;phemy, therefore you have more cau&s;e to recant for delive|ring
&s;uch doctrine, then I for cen&s;uring it, as it ju&s;tly de&s;erves;
I was never again&s;t externall reverence, but not limited at the
Name Je&s;us.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XIII.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;ay <HI>that it is not probable that it is a dutie of the Text, &s;ee|ing
it is not typified or prophe&s;ied in the old Te&s;tament;</HI> You
have not di&s;proved my <HI>Antecedent:</HI> to &s;ay that a <HI>truth</HI> may bee in
<HI>analogy</HI> though not typified, or prophe&s;ied, is nothing to the
Que&s;tion, except you meane &s;ignified to come to pa&s;&s;e by the
<HI>analogie.</HI> Tho&s;e places, <HI>Act.</HI> 3. 3. 8. and <HI>Act.</HI> 10. 43. &s;peake of what
&s;hould come to pa&s;&s;e in Chri&s;t; that of <HI>Matth.</HI> 5. 18. &s;peakes of
jots and tittles, and I &s;hewed you, that &s;mall <HI>matters</HI> were fore|told
in Chri&s;t: This &s;hould have beene much more, if it had
beene the <HI>honour of Chri&s;ts Kingdome.</HI> But at length you will
finde it in <HI>Type</HI> and <HI>prophe&s;ie,</HI> but that in <HI>Gen.</HI> 37. 9. is nothing to
your purpo&s;e, except you could prove that <HI>Jo&s;ephs</HI> brethren
bowed to their <HI>Brothers name:</HI> neither that of <HI>Exod.</HI> 17. 11. except
you can prove that <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> bowed to the <HI>Name Jo&s;huah. Tertul|lian</HI>
doth not &s;peake of the bare literall Name. Tho&s;e Scriptures
which you bring, as <HI>Exod. 3. 15. P&s;al. 75. 1. P&s;al. 111. 9. I&s;ay</HI> 45.
23. are to no purpo&s;e, for becau&s;e Gods name is Jehovah, his
name is neare, his name is holy, all knees mu&s;t bow to Jeho|vah,
that is, to God him&s;elfe, therefore that all knees mu&s;t bow
at or to the Name Je&s;us is a ridiculous incon&s;equent.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<PB N="47" REF="29">
<HEAD>EECT. XIIII.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;ay that if this bowing were a <HI>nece&s;&s;ary command of
God,</HI> it is probable that there would be &s;ome <HI>examples</HI> for
it, but there are none. Tho&s;e places that I have brought for my
con&s;equent are weighty; for they concerne examples of faith,
and the effects and fruits thereof in obedience; there be exam|ples
enough in Scripture of all nece&s;&s;ary duties; and though
there is no example preci&s;ely of <HI>putting off the hat,</HI> yet there is of
<HI>externall reverence</HI> in Gods hou&s;e, which you have &s;ufficiently
proved to my hand, and you and your friends hold any <HI>exter|nall
reverence</HI> &s;ufficient at the Name Je&s;us, as putting off the
hat, bowing downe the body in &s;tead of the knee, but you
cannot bring any example of any <HI>externall reverence</HI> what&s;oever,
given at the mention of the Name Je&s;us. That of <HI>Matth.</HI> 17. 6.
though it concerne not the Que&s;tion was no wor&s;hip properly,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Calvin in loc.</NOTE>
but an <HI>infirmitie of feare.</HI> That which you &s;peake of the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> of
the <HI>Name</HI> makes not for you; for our <HI>Que&s;tion</HI> is about the
name, and I am &s;ure you never bow to the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI> without the
<HI>Name.</HI> It is &s;trange that if this were a duty by this Text never
before <HI>practi&s;ed,</HI> that it &s;hould have no example, or &s;hew of ex|ample
to <HI>confirme</HI> it.</P>
<P>I have done with the chiefe Arguments, and now I &s;hall la|bour
to be briefe.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XV.</HEAD>
<P>AS for your proud &s;corne, I thinke I have made better u&s;e of
my reading than your &s;elfe, who wre&s;t it to the de&s;tructi|on
of your &s;elfe and others. The Fathers generally under&s;tand
Name here for the <HI>Name of God,</HI> or the <HI>onely begotten Son of God,</HI>
by your owne confe&s;&s;ion, therefore they are again&s;t you. But
you &s;ophi&s;tically confound the&s;e names with the Name Je&s;us, as
if they were all one; if &s;o, why doe you preferre the Name Je|&s;us
above God? Dr. <HI>Page</HI> his Query is an&s;wered in Sect. 8.</P>
<P><HI>Zanchy</HI> under&s;tands not Name here for Je&s;us; therefore you
produce him &s;ubtilly to deceive the Reader.</P>
<P><PB N="48" REF="30">
Of all the Antients within the fir&s;t 700. yeares, none but <HI>Ori|gen,</HI>
who is no Orthodox Father under&s;tands Name above eve|ry
Name for the Name Je&s;us,<NOTE PLACE="marg">See <HI>Willet</HI> on Rom. 14 <HI>Contro.</HI> 9.</NOTE> yet you produce him not, to pre|ferre
it above Divine Names, yet he on <HI>Rom.</HI> 14. 11. doth over|throw
your literall bowing. Becau&s;e I &s;ay from <HI>Hierome,</HI> that
the Church fulfils this Text, <HI>by praying to the Father in the Name
of Chri&s;t:</HI> you &s;ay I mu&s;t inferre that <HI>all creatures</HI> mu&s;t doe &s;o too,
but you trifle, for the materiall bowing is &s;ubjection, which is
the &s;ame to all, but the forme and manner of it differs according
to the different &s;tate of the creature. I doe not under&s;tand the
materiall bowing &s;o, as you ab&s;urdly under&s;tand it of a religi|ous
ceremony. You have not made good what I de&s;ired, tho&s;e
Fathers which you bring in your <GAP DESC="foreign">. doe but &s;et downe the
words of the Text, none &s;peakes of coroporall bowing at the
Name Je&s;us mentioned.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XVI.</HEAD>
<P>YOu have &s;uch a facultie in &s;triving again&s;t the truth, that
you care not what you &s;ay in defen&s;e of errour. Your &s;elfe,
and all your friends under&s;tand the Text of the &s;ole bowing at
the Name Je&s;us, which ordinary practi&s;e confirmes, therefore
no other Names may be bowed to, without profaning the name
Je&s;us, for if all names may be indifferently bowed to, to what
purpo&s;e was this Text? for then God &s;hould mocke his Sonne,
in advancing him to an honour which he had before. This in
effect I &s;aid, upon which the whole Section depends;
Therefore till you an&s;wer this, (which you have not done)
what&s;oever you babble in this Section vani&s;heth.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XVII.</HEAD>
<P>THe Bi&s;hops generally did not give it in charge in Vi&s;itation-Articles,
before this Archbi&s;hops time, how then could
the Churchwardens pre&s;ent it? and in my time it was generally
neglected in the Univer&s;itie; worthy men in our Church wrote
again&s;t it in their printed allowed works, what &s;inceritie was this
<PB N="49" REF="30">
to let the&s;e things alone, if it be a dutie of the Text, and to
pre&s;&s;e the other ceremonies? The tale you lay to my charge is
not &s;o.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. XVIII.</HEAD>
<P>I Wrong not Doctor <HI>Page,</HI> for as he &s;tates the que&s;tion uncer|tainly,
though he ground it on the Text,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Ju&s;tific. of bowing, pag. 18. <HI>&amp; alibi.</HI></NOTE> &s;o I appeale to
any reader that &s;hall diligently peru&s;e him, whether hee be not
content that it be held a thing indifferent. As for my &s;elfe,
I confe&s;&s;e that in former times I held it indifferent, &s;o other di|vine
names may have a like re&s;pect, but I never held it any way
from the Text.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 N="2" TYPE="part">
<PB REF="31">
<PB N="51" REF="31">
<HEAD>PART II.</HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">The fir&s;t Section is cleared in Part 1.
Section 4. and 8.</HEAD>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. II.</HEAD>
<P>_HEre I will not &s;pend Paper, for though you profe&s;&s;e to
di&s;cu&s;&s;e the truth uprightly, yet the intelligent Reader
cannot but mi&s;tru&s;t that you have gone mainely both
again&s;t your &s;cience and con&s;cience, you prove no|thing
from Scripture, nor an&s;wer the Scriptures I have brought,
but depart not onely from the <HI>judgement</HI> of your owne Authors
in the <HI>Antecedent,</HI> as <HI>Zanchy, &amp;c.</HI> but al&s;o from the <HI>Que&s;tion;</HI> for
you confound the <HI>Name Je&s;us</HI> with the <HI>Per&s;on:</HI> and whereas I
rea&s;on <HI>a dicto &s;ecundum quid,</HI> &s;peaking of names con&s;idered in
Chri&s;t; you rea&s;on <HI>ad dictum &s;impliciter,</HI> to tho&s;e names con|&s;idered
in them&s;elves; the difference betweene you and me here
is this, whether Chri&s;t &s;uffered mo&s;t in his name Je&s;us, by
which he was commonly called, or his glorious titles, <HI>God,
Sonne of God, &amp;c.</HI> which were concealed, and decryed. You &s;ay
in the name Je&s;us, I &s;ay in the other Names, becau&s;e in re&s;pect
of the&s;e he &s;uffered <HI>poenam damni, &amp; &s;en&s;us,</HI> which in re&s;pect
of the Name Je&s;us he did not. I will illu&s;trate this by this fa|miliar
<PB N="52" REF="32">
in&s;tance. <HI>Thomas Barton</HI> for his demerits is now decryed
<HI>Par&s;on of We&s;tmin&s;ton,</HI> yet the <HI>Par&s;on of We&s;tmin&s;ton</HI> in <HI>&s;implici ter|mino</HI>
&s;uffers not, but I feare me the <HI>Par&s;on of We&s;tmin&s;ton</HI> con&s;i|dered
in Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> &s;uffers: I would faine know of you Ma|&s;ter
<HI>Barton,</HI> where you complaine mo&s;t, of your Name <HI>Thomas,</HI> or
of being decryed <HI>Par&s;on of We&s;tmin&s;ton;</HI> I beleeve it would more
cheere you to be cryed up againe <HI>Par&s;on of We&s;tmin&s;ton,</HI> than to
have your name declared <HI>Thomas,</HI> which was never denyed you:
Let the judicious Reader apply this.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. III.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;ay that this rea&s;on, that we mu&s;t bow at the Name
Je&s;us, becau&s;e it &s;ignifyeth a <HI>Saviour,</HI> is not grounded on
the Text. <HI>You an&s;wer you are &s;orry that obedience will not be, except a
rea&s;on be given.</HI> Sir, I de&s;ire to give obedience to any certaine
command, though I have no <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> but if any &s;hall affirme that
God commands upon a <HI>rea&s;on,</HI> I de&s;ire a proofe of this rea&s;on
from the word. But you refer me to your <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>p.</HI> 18. where you &s;ay
it is at large, that the Name Je&s;us is above <HI>all names,</HI> to <HI>God,</HI> to <HI>us,</HI>
which you have from <HI>Bi&s;hop Andrewes:</HI> and then you adde of
your owne, that it is above all <HI>in it &s;elfe.</HI></P>
<P>It is above all to <HI>God</HI> you &s;ay, becau&s;e no other <HI>Name</HI> had us
<HI>men,</HI> and our <HI>&s;alvation</HI> in it. But I hope Sir, that <HI>our Salvation</HI> is
not in the <HI>literall name:</HI> but what is this to the <HI>Text;</HI> when
name there is of larger extent, then concerning us <HI>men</HI> onely? I
pray Sir, is Je&s;us more to <HI>God</HI> than <HI>Jehovah,</HI> which denotes his
glorious excellency in him&s;elfe, his life, and e&s;&s;ence? is our
Salvation more to God than the&s;e? Chri&s;t indeed laid downe for
us <HI>the life of man</HI> in becomming our <HI>Saviour,</HI> but not the <HI>life of
God.</HI> The life of God re&s;tored the life of man.</P>
<P>To us you &s;ay it is above all, becau&s;e of the great worke of &s;al|vation
wrought for us; but it is fal&s;e, for <HI>Gods glory, and life
&s;hould be dearer to us than our owne benefit.</HI> You be like an unnatu|rall
<PB N="53" REF="32">
childe, that &s;o hee can have the <HI>inheritance</HI> hee cares not &s;o
much for his <HI>fathers life.</HI> But what made Chri&s;t a <HI>Saviour,</HI> and
his death &s;o meritorious, but becau&s;e hee was <HI>Jehovah?</HI> What
drawes out our &s;alvation to <HI>all eternitie,</HI> but becau&s;e he is <HI>Jeho|vah?</HI>
If <HI>God</HI> &s;hould cea&s;e to be <HI>Jehovah,</HI> our <HI>Salvation</HI> would come
to an end.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Quicquid efficit tale, ide&s;t magis tale.</NOTE> Here I will bring your owne witne&s;&s;e,<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De natura dei c. 13. p. 40.</NOTE> <HI>Zanchy,</HI> a|gain&s;t
you. <Q><HI>Quid hoc nominis</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>u&s;u prae&s;tantius, &amp;c.</HI> what is
more excellent than this u&s;e of the Name Jehovah? what can be
imagined, or invented more available for our &s;alvation, and
the comfort of our &s;oules?</Q></P>
<P>In that you &s;ay that Je&s;us in it &s;elfe is above the Name of God,<NOTE PLACE="marg">If the Name be above God, then &s;urely the per&s;on mu&s;t be above God.</NOTE>
becau&s;e you prove nothing from Scripture, but exceede in bla&s;|phemy
all that ever wrote before you, I will not defile my &s;elfe
with &s;uch &s;tuffe: onely this I &s;ay, that it is <HI>infinitely</HI> ab&s;urd to
hold, that any worke of <HI>God,</HI> yea take all his workes together,
can be greater than <HI>Gods life;</HI> for if hee &s;hould demoli&s;h all his
<HI>workes,</HI> he could worke againe, but if he &s;hould cea&s;e to be, hee
can worke no more. Therefore to affirme that to prophane the
Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is a greater &s;inne than to prophane the Name <HI>God,</HI>
is but a bla&s;phemous a&s;&s;ertion of a <HI>Popi&s;h Author</HI> owned by his
<HI>Pupill Barton.</HI></P>
<P>As for my <HI>Argument,</HI> if the Name Je&s;us be above every Name of
God, it will make the <HI>&s;econd Per&s;on</HI> above the other <HI>Per&s;ons,</HI> be|cau&s;e
his maine an&s;wer is his conceit without proofe that <HI>Je&s;us</HI>
is the <HI>e&s;&s;entiall name of God,</HI> and made proper by di&s;pen&s;ation, it
being di&s;proved Part 1. Sect. 9. I leave it, onely this I will I &s;ay
of it, if the other Per&s;ons have made the <HI>name of the e&s;&s;ence</HI> proper&punc;
it will follow that they have made the <HI>e&s;&s;ence it &s;elfe</HI> proper, then
none &s;hould be God, but the &s;econd Per&s;on onely; for as Names
are,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 15.</NOTE> &s;aith he, &s;o are the vertues to be e&s;teemed.</P>
<P>As for Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes</HI> as he is to be under&s;tood, he plainely
contradicts him&s;elfe,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sermon Phil. 2.</NOTE> and I pray how can hee affirme, that the
<HI>Per&s;on of Chri&s;t</HI> is gone from us; when in the &s;ame place he &s;aith,
that <HI>Chri&s;ts body and &s;oule,</HI> and tho&s;e not without his <HI>Deity,</HI> are
really pre&s;ent in the <HI>Sacrament?</HI> The per&s;on of Chri&s;t may bee
&s;aid to live, and dwell among his <HI>Saints</HI> though not <HI>per&s;onally,</HI>
yet in and through his <HI>Spirit, per</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">.</P>
<P>La&s;t of all, becau&s;e I thus reply to the an&s;wer of tho&s;e which
<PB N="54" REF="33">
&s;ay that <HI>Je&s;us is the Name of the three Per&s;ons, and &s;o by bowing at
this Name they honour all alike;</HI> that if Je&s;us be the Name of the
<HI>three Per&s;ons,</HI> then cannot it be the Name above every Name in the
Text as they &s;ay, becau&s;e that name is onely proper to the &s;e|cond
Per&s;on; becau&s;e he onely was incarnate, and Mediator,
and God gave him that name after his humiliation. You not
knowing how to &s;huffle up a faire an&s;wer, in a &s;currilous way,
lay <HI>Ariani&s;me</HI> to my charge, and tell me that I am put to a &s;hift,
and that pitifully, becau&s;e &s;ay you by this reply I &s;hake downe
my owne pillar, Part 1. Sect. 1. for &s;o I mu&s;t deny (you &s;ay)
what I there affirmed, that &s;upereminent power and glory is
the Name above every Name, becau&s;e the three Per&s;ons have
&s;upereminent power and glory, or el&s;e I mu&s;t affirme that the
Name Je&s;us is proper to the &s;econd Per&s;on by di&s;pen&s;ation, as
al&s;o <HI>in my owne Tenet,</HI> &s;upereminent power and glory. But Sir
it is you that &s;hift and not I, for &s;upereminent power and glo|ry,
which is e&s;&s;entiall and &s;o common to every per&s;on in Tri|nity,
is not here the Name above every Name, but that &s;upere|minent
power and glory, which is the advancement, and ho|nour
of Chri&s;t Mediator, God and Man. It is impo&s;&s;ible that
the e&s;&s;entiall Name of God can be made proper, unle&s;&s;e the e&s;|&s;ence
it &s;elfe be made proper. Therefore your conceit of a pro|prietie
by di&s;pen&s;ation is frivolous. If the Name Je&s;us bee (as
you &s;ay) e&s;&s;entiall, it cannot be proper to the &s;econd Per&s;on; and
if proper, it cannot be e&s;&s;entiall. The Name above every Name,
which I have proved is &s;upereminent power and glory, is given
to Chri&s;t as Mediatour, and therefore it is not e&s;&s;entiall in him
as a Per&s;on of the Trinitie; therefore my pillar &s;tands as firme
as ever it did, and you &s;hew your &s;elfe but a trifler in this
Reply.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<PB N="55" REF="33">
<HEAD>SECT. IV.</HEAD>
<P>HEre you doe uncharitably wre&s;t my words, for I doe not
&s;ay, that no Name hath any excellency for <HI>&s;ignification &s;ake,</HI>
or that the Name <HI>Je&s;us</HI> hath no <HI>preheminence</HI> at all for the &s;en&s;e
of it, but that it is not above <HI>every Name</HI> in the <HI>Text:</HI> and there|fore
to be bowed to becau&s;e it &s;ignifieth a <HI>Saviour.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;ay it againe, di&s;prove it if you can. By this rea&s;on I &s;aid
we &s;hould rather bow at the Name <HI>Chri&s;t,</HI> which doth more par|ticularly,
and expre&s;&s;ely denote our <HI>&s;alvation</HI> than the Name
<HI>Je&s;us,</HI> as <HI>&V;r&s;in</HI> declares; denoting his <HI>three offices</HI> by which hee
<HI>&s;aves</HI> us; You an&s;wer <HI>Chri&s;t is not a Name but title of honour,</HI> but if
it be not a <HI>Name</HI> I know not how to judge of things, hee being
more often called by that Name &s;ince the <HI>A&s;cen&s;ion</HI> than <HI>Je&s;us.</HI>
But being a title of honour, <HI>titles of honour</HI> are more <HI>excellent</HI> than
<HI>proper Names.</HI> But &s;ee how this Sophi&s;ter immediatly forgets
him&s;elfe, for pre&s;ently he calls it the Name of <HI>Chri&s;ts humanitie;</HI>
then belike the <HI>title</HI> of the <HI>humanitie</HI> is a <HI>title of honour,</HI> and <HI>Je&s;us</HI>
the title of the <HI>Deity,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">This is Bi&s;hop <HI>Andrewes</HI> his rea&s;on.</NOTE> a <HI>poore</HI> and <HI>humble name,</HI> as he el&s;ewhere calls
<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. But what is his <HI>rea&s;on</HI> that <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is the name of the humanitie?
<HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e it &s;ignifieth <HI>annointed,</HI> and God cannot be <HI>annointed;</HI>
true, God in his <HI>e&s;&s;ence</HI> &s;imply con&s;idered cannot be <HI>annointed.</HI> But
Chri&s;t <HI>God</HI> and <HI>Man</HI> was annointed to be our <HI>Mediatour,</HI> as an|nointing
&s;ignifieth his de&s;ignation to that <HI>office;</HI> This I &s;aid,
that if the &s;en&s;e of our &s;alvation &s;hould make us bow, the <HI>&s;en&s;e</HI>
of it, and the <HI>manner how it is wrought</HI> is <HI>more clearely</HI> &s;et out to
us in the Name <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> than <HI>Je&s;us,</HI> which Name I affirme doth
al&s;o <HI>more fully</HI> &s;et out the Per&s;on: for Je&s;us denotes onely a <HI>Savi|our,</HI>
but Chri&s;t &s;heweth who and what he is, <HI>viz.</HI> the <HI>promi&s;ed Me&s;|&s;ias,
a Prie&s;t, a Prophet, and King:</HI> Yea it doth more properly de|note
the Per&s;on, for it denotes none but he, but Je&s;us may de|note
&s;ome body el&s;e.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<PB N="56" REF="34">
<HEAD>SECT. V.</HEAD>
<P>VVHat is &s;aid here, is &s;ufficiently an&s;wered in Part 1. Sect.
1. &amp; 8. Here he wre&s;teth my words, for when I &s;ay the
Name Je&s;us concernes the elect onely, he &s;aith I &s;ay the bowing
concernes the Elect onely.</P>
<P>Doctor <HI>Page</HI> his an&s;wer is nothing to the purpo&s;e, for if the
Devils bow onely becau&s;e Je&s;us is a Saviour to others, then doe
they not bow by a rea&s;on proper to them&s;elves, which is con|trary
to the Text, for the rea&s;on there is common to all, <HI>viz. be|cau&s;e
Chri&s;t hath dominion and power over all,</HI> which is &s;o plaine
that you are impudent to deny it.</P>
<P>Though all &s;hall not fare alike at the day of judgement, yet
&s;hall all appeare alike: &s;o the &s;ubjection materially is the &s;ame to
all, though formally it differ.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECT. VI.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;ay, to bow at the Name Je&s;us onely, which Name
&s;ignifieth our Saviour, and not at Jehovah, which &s;ignifieth
Gods e&s;&s;entiall glory, is a preferring our &s;alvation above Gods
glory, therefore it is a wicked Tenet. You fir&s;t deny the Ante|cedent,
and &s;ay your bowing is &s;pecified to bee to the glory of
the Father, but you mu&s;t fir&s;t prove it from the Text. Then
you &s;ay we are Simonians, Saturnians, if wee thinke to &s;erve
God for nothing: O horrible bla&s;phemy is Je&s;us all, and Jehovah
nothing? Is God to us &s;omething, and God in his glorious na|ture
nothing? is it all to &s;erve God for our &s;elves, and nothing
to &s;erve him for him&s;elfe? When I alleadge <HI>Deut.</HI> 28. 58. to
prove that Jehovah is Gods glorious name, you ab&s;urdly wre&s;t
me contrary to my meaning, that I &s;hould &s;ay wee mu&s;t &s;erve
<PB N="57" REF="34">
God more for feare than love, which is nothing agreeable to
my words.</P>
<P>Againe you impudently wrong mee, in laying to my charge
that I make Ie&s;us and Iehovah not the &s;ame God, it is your
&s;elfe that doe it, in making Ie&s;us greater than Iehovah, I onely
di&s;tingui&s;h the names, (which you here confound for your owne
ends) and &s;hew that Ie&s;us &s;heweth what God is to us; Iehovah,
what he is in him&s;elfe; therefore to wor&s;hip him as Ie&s;us, and
not as Iehovah,<NOTE PLACE="marg">See Sect. 3.</NOTE> is abominable. There is nothing el&s;e worth
replying to, being cleared el&s;e-where; onely I thinke good to
vindicate my &s;elfe from one clamorous imputation.</P>
<P>When I &s;ay, if we mu&s;t bow onely in re&s;pect of &s;alvation, De|vils,
and Reprobates &s;hould be more &s;incere in their &s;ervice then
we, who mu&s;t bow to Chri&s;t as he is their Lord, but wee onely
by the opinion of the&s;e men as hee is our Saviour; here hee
ble&s;&s;eth him&s;elfe as if &s;ome <HI>&s;pirit</HI> appeared before him. But wee
will &s;ee, whether we can allay this &s;pirit, or lay him in his right
place. He and his friends under&s;tand the proper dutie of the
Text <HI>in it &s;elfe</HI> con&s;idered to be <HI>a Religious ceremony</HI> to bee perfor|med
in holy times,<NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. p. 53, 54.</NOTE> and places. And him&s;elfe holds that all An|gels
and men, ju&s;t and unju&s;t, are bound to performe voluntary
obedience to glory. If the Devils there be &s;o bound, if they per|forme
religious acts, and ob&s;erve holy times (for the bowing
materially is the &s;ame for all) gratis, when they can looke for
nothing but damnation; to require good for evill being a note
of perfection, much more to requite good for &s;o great an evill
as utter de&s;truction: they &s;hould attaine to an unmatchable per|fection.
Therefore Sir weepe not for me, but for your &s;elfe, it
is your owne doctrine, I would your hand might tremble in
mercy, and your eyes drop for the mon&s;trous bla&s;phemies
which you have let fall in your booke.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<PB N="58" REF="35">
<HEAD>SECT. VII.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I &s;ay that Doctor <HI>Page</HI> his rea&s;on is not good, that
we &s;hould bow at the Name Je&s;us, becau&s;e above all other
Names it minds us of Chri&s;ts death. Fir&s;t, I denyed the antece|dent,
affirming that many called <HI>God their Saviour</HI> in the old
Te&s;tament, yet few &s;uppo&s;ed that God &s;hould die, but you &s;ay
very few, which I &s;ay not, I deny not that it was knowne, but
it was not commonly and clearely knowne, as appeares by
Chri&s;ts Di&s;ciples, who though they called him Je&s;us, yet would
hardly be per&s;waded that redemption &s;hould bee by his blood,
though they were often told of it, <HI>Joh.</HI> 20. 9. Therefore <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is
not the chiefe&s;t name &s;ignifying <HI>death;</HI> but the Name <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> is
rather, becau&s;e it denotes him to be a Prie&s;t, and &s;uch a Prie&s;t,
that did al&s;o &s;hed his owne blood, and therefore I &s;ay againe,
God could have beene a <HI>Je&s;us</HI> if he had would, without becom|ming
a Prie&s;t, he could not indeed, becau&s;e hee would not, but
he never could have beene a Prie&s;t unle&s;&s;e hee had beene a Je&s;us.
You have not overthrowne the con&s;equent, for fir&s;t, how have
you proved by the Scriptures that the Name of Chri&s;ts death
is the Name of his Glory? Secondly, I goe not again&s;t the or|der
of the Text, when I &s;ay the Name above every Name leades
us to Chri&s;ts <HI>glory,</HI> and not to his <HI>&s;ufferings.</HI> I deny not that
<HI>God</HI> in the <HI>Text</HI> proceeds from humility to glory, yet is it ab|&s;urd
to confound Chri&s;ts humiliation with his exaltation;
and the Name of the one with the Name of the other;
<HI>The Name Je&s;us lookes to hell &s;aith Doctor Page,</HI> but we mu&s;t looke
for Chri&s;t in heaven. Thirdly, neither have I changed the
<HI>Que&s;tion,</HI> but it is you rather; for doe you bow onely to the
Name, becau&s;e you &s;ay (but prove it not) that it is a &s;uffering
Name? doe you not bow al&s;o to the &s;en&s;e of the Name, becau&s;e
it &s;ignifieth <HI>&s;alvation by dying?</HI> This you &s;tand upon continually,
therefore the <HI>ignorantia elenchi</HI> is in your &s;elfe.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Quicquid con|venit tali qua|tenus tali, conve|nit omni tali.</NOTE> My marginall
note &s;tands firme again&s;t you; for &s;eeing you &s;ay you bow in
the &s;en&s;e of the Name Je&s;us, the &s;en&s;e of the Name is as well
conveighed to the under&s;tanding by &s;ight as by hearing: your
&s;elfe make it all one as I have noted, Part 1. Sect. 8.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<PB N="59" REF="35">
<HEAD>SECT. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>HEre I affirme, <HI>that it is no good rea&s;on to bow at the Name Je&s;us
becau&s;e the fulne&s;&s;e of the God-head dwells in Chri&s;t bodily,
Col.</HI> 2. 9. That which you reply to the deniall of the con&s;equence
is nothing, but what hath been &s;ufficiently cleared before. And
that which you alleadge from <HI>Tertullian</HI> is again&s;t you. For if the
Names <HI>Je&s;us</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> do one of them imply the other, why
doe you make &s;uch a difference? though it be your direct opini|on
by the humanity to climbe up to the glorious Trinitie, which
I deny not; yet this will not prove the con&s;equence: and I ve|rily
beleeve, that God will accept our wor&s;hip in, and by the
Name Chri&s;t, as well as Je&s;us; I &s;ay it is no Rea&s;on to affirme
that we &s;hould bow at the Name Je&s;us rather than Chri&s;t, be|cau&s;e
&s;ome &s;ay, that <HI>Je&s;us</HI> is the Name of the <HI>Per&s;on,</HI> Chri&s;t of
the <HI>office,</HI> becau&s;e Chri&s;t by his office brings us the Father.</P>
<P><HI>Je&s;us</HI> doth denote his office as well as his Per&s;on, though
more &s;ummarily his office; Chri&s;t denotes his Per&s;on as well as
his office, though more clearely his office then the Name Je&s;us
doth; yea it denotes his per&s;on more properly and certain|ly
then the name Je&s;us, which denotes &s;ome body el&s;e, but Chri&s;t
none but he. There is nothing el&s;e worth an&s;wering, onely
this I &s;tand &s;till to ju&s;tifie, that upon the foregoing rea&s;on if we
mu&s;t bow to the Father at the mention of the Name Je&s;us onely,
we mu&s;t as well pray to the Father by mentioning of that Name
onely; neither have you di&s;proved it, for though Prayer bee
one dutie and bowing another, yet are they both parts of wor|&s;hip,
and lip-prayer is no more &s;ub&s;tantiall than outward bow|ing,
the excellency of both is in the heart.</P>
<P>For the conclu&s;ive Argument, the heads are but barely denyed
without proofe, and what I affirmed is &s;ufficiently ju&s;tified in
the premi&s;es, and confirmed in this reply, and &s;o I leave it.
But Sir I mu&s;t tell you, that whereas you lay to my charge
that I had others a&s;&s;i&s;tance in my booke; It is fal&s;e, I am not
beholding to any for two words, either in informing or re|forming
otherwi&s;e than what light I have demon&s;trated to have
<PB N="60" REF="36">
received from &s;uch Authors as I have read, neither have I de&s;i|red
any a&s;&s;i&s;tance in this reply; Therefore none of my brethren
are to &s;hare with mee in any infirmitie what&s;oever in either
Tract.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="note">
<HEAD>An Adverti&s;ement to
Ma&s;ter Barton.</HEAD>
<P>IF Ma&s;ter <HI>Barton</HI> doe ever intend to make another
an&s;wer, I de&s;ire thus much of him; that hee recon|cile
tho&s;e contradictions that I have noted in his infal|lible
witne&s;&s;e Doctor <HI>Page,</HI> and in him&s;elfe, and e&s;pe|cially
hee mu&s;t cleare Section 4. Part 1. where hee
hath &s;hamefully wre&s;ted Scriptures to maintaine his er|rour;
hee mu&s;t bring plaine Scriptures&punc; to &s;hew that <HI>In
the name</HI> doth any where &s;ignifie <HI>at the mention of
the Name</HI> in that &s;en&s;e as he takes it in <HI>Phil.</HI> 2. 9. viz. to
bee a &s;igne how to know when to doe &s;omething, or
to performe &s;ome wor&s;hip. And above all hee mu&s;t
cleare the eighth Section of the fir&s;t part, and prove by
evident Scriptures (for tho&s;e Scriptures which he hath
brought he hath fearefully abu&s;ed) &s;o farre forth as to
leave it without doubt, (&s;eeing hee makes it a point of
Faith and Salvation,) that bowing at the Name Je&s;us
is the bowing to bee performed at the day of Judge|ment
by all rationall creatures, and to be done by the
<PB N="61" REF="36">
Saints to all perpetuitie after the day of judgement,
and an&s;wer my Rea&s;ons, and Scriptures to the contra|ry.
When he hath done this I will write againe, and
&s;hew what my opinion is; If this be not done, all that
hee hath written fir&s;t and la&s;t in the que&s;tion by his
owne confe&s;&s;ion is nothing worth; and I re&s;olve never
to trouble my more nece&s;&s;ary &s;tudies with any more re|plies;
for I acknowledge all that is be&s;ides Gods word,
be there never &s;o much &s;hew of learning, to be no better
then chaffe and &s;tubble, dung and excrements. And if
he or any one el&s;e for him &s;hall truely performe what
I here require of him, I will promi&s;e him a priviledge
beyond other men, hee &s;hall bee fed with Phea&s;ants
milke.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="37">
<HEAD>Errata.</HEAD>
<P>PAge 3. l. 26 in the Margin blot out 6. p. 5. l. 16. read &s;cope of the Text, p. 6. l.
36 r. Bi&s;hop <HI>Babington,</HI> p. 7. l. 17. r here, p. 9. l. 7 r. Chri&s;t, l. 21. r. two or three
Authors, p. 10. l. 3. r. commonly called by, l. 27 and 26 r. declaration of the
Name Je&s;us as you affirme, p. 12. l. 35. r. or expre&s;&s;ely, p 13. l 26. put out (but)
l. 28. r. Ephe&s;. 1. 21. l. 37. r. increated, p. 19. l. 9 r. vertues, p. 21. l. 5. r. <HI>Nomen ca|pitur
pro profe&s;&s;ione</HI> &s;aith <HI>Calvin</HI> on that place, l. 33. r. you produce, p. 23. l. 34. in
the Margin r. <HI>de tribus,</HI> p. 25. l. 8. r. though perhaps he might, hold it indifferent
at the time, p. 26. l 10. r. <GAP DESC="foreign">, in Heb. 1. 2. p. 26. l. 28. r. here in degree, p. 27.
l. 10. r. I&s;ay 8. 20 and Heb. 11. 1. p. 27. l. 36. put out (fir&s;t) p. 33. 33. r. Rev 14. 1.
l. 36. r. for ever in heaven, p. 35. l 28. r. are but one, p. 36. l. 14&punc; in the Margin r.
<HI>loco 1. de Deo,</HI> p. 37. l 2. r. cavillers, l. 16. r argument, p. 41. l. 23. r. 1 Cor. 11. 4
p. 43. l. 23. r. ceremony, l 26 r affirme, p 46. l 19. r. Act. 3. 18.</P>
<P>In Part 1 Section 5. p. 24. l. 18. &s;upply this, what I have &s;aid of power and
glory &s;ee Part 1 Sect. 1. p. 13. and part 2 Sect. 3. p. 54. And it is you, and not I,
that deny him to be Je&s;us, till the re&s;urrection, for by your expo&s;ition you &s;ay
the Name was then given him, then it will follow expre&s;&s;ely that the office was
then given him.</P>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
