TO these Letters of mine I never yet received an­swer, though they were both delivered before this Confutation was fully printed. Which Confutation now flying abroad without any castigations of these forequo­ted Errors, notwithstanding these two Letters, I thought it my duty with all convenient speede to acquaint your Motherhood with them, with these two Letters, and the inclosed briefe Survey, that so you might the better dis­cerne theProv. 14, 16. The foole ra­geth and is confident. brazen-faced impudency of your Sonne Giles Widdowes, who hath published these his Errours to the world, to your disgrace, for all my friendly advice; that so you may more justly tutour him at least, if not cha­stise him for these his frenticke Oversights, which may draw a greater blurre upon your selfe, than ever they can cast on me, or him, whose reputation is so small, that he is not capable of disgrace.

And now, Deare Mother, that you may know what cause you have in time to censure, to correct this untu­tered Sonne of yours, (whom you may doe well to set to schoole some twenty yeares longer, before you suffer him to print any more, at leastwise under your authori­tie, [Page 15] which I suppose he hath now abused;) I shall desire you to take into your grave consideration, and then into your Censure, these few ensuing particulars, which I have gleaned since his booke was published.

To passe by his false Quotations ofPage 21, 23 Binius Concil: Tom: 1, page 670, for 671: and page 685, for 687. Edit: Coloniae Agrip: 1608. OfPage 21. Athanasius to Adelphius, pag 69, for page 53, 54, Edit: Parisijs: 1608. OfPage 28. Irenaeus, page 51, for page 38, 39, Edit: Basiliae, 1571. OfPage 28. Hi­lary, lib: 9, De Trin: p: 135, for 64, Edit: Colon: Agrip: 1617. OfPage 31, 32 Cyrill Thesauri, l: 8, p: 99, for p: 190, Edit: Parisijs 1604: the Editions in Sir Thomas Bodlie his Li­brary, which Mr. Widdowes (who hath exchanged all his Bookes for Cans) hath followed: together with his Quotation ofPage 32, 41 Athanasius Oratio 2. Contra Arianos, for lib: 3, Contra Arianos, p: 101. VVhich perchance were onely Errours of the Printer, though they are not corrected: as are these for which he taxeth me: pag. 67, viz These Erra­taes I could not correct for want of figu­red pages in my Appendix. Theophilact, for Theophilus: St. Cyril: lib: 17, for lib: 11, on St: Iohn: and lib: 13, for lib: 12, Thesauri: Gaiae Papae, for Gaij: Leo Epist: Decret: Ep. 14, 81, & 95: for 15, 83, & 97. Aelredus Sermo 1, for Sermo 3: Koming stein for Ko­neigstein: the chapters and pages of all which are truly vouched. I shall remember you onely of these his fol­lowing grosse mistakes.

Page 44: he quotes Origen on Philip: 2: there being no 1 such booke of his now extant.

Page 67: he taxeth me for quoting Ambrosij Hexa­ëmeron: 2 (ô the ridiculousnesse of this learned Critique!) for Hexameroon: VVhen as the printed Titles both of Coloniae A. grip 1616. Tom. 1. p. 1. to 52. Ambrose, and the Latine Basiliae 1565. Basil: are Hexaëmeron; as I have quoted them: not Hexameroon; there being no such Latine word in any Latine Dictionary or Authour that I have ever met with.

Ibid: page 67: he writes; that St. Cyrils 5 lib: in Hesai­ [...] 3 cap: 55, p: 362: is a Non ens; when as in the verie E­dition of my Cyril (Parisijs 1608) which himselfe doth follow, it is both Ens and Verum too.

[Page 16] 4 Ibidem, he averres, that Primasius saith nothing on Rom: 14. yet he hath a Commentary on that chapter; and on the 11 verse he writes thus: Omnes enim stabimus ante tribu­nal Dei: Deum esse Christum qui judicaturus est non dubites: Scriptum est enim, Vivo ego, dicit Dominus; quo­niam mihi flectetur et genu omenis lingua confitebitur, &c. VVhere this bowing of every knee to Christ, is referred by this Father to the day of judgement.

5 Ibidē, (to shew himselfe more than an ordinary Ignora­mus) he writes, that neither Luther nor Ferus hath a Po­stil on Palm-sunday. VVhen as Luther (as you may find in his Editiō of Postils: Argētorati, 1533, fol: 229, &c.) hath 3 several Postils on Palm-sunday; & Ferus hath no lesse then 10 Postills on that very day: VVitnesse his Postillae, pars 2. Antwerpiae 1554: fol: 156: to 184: & Lugduni 1554: fol: 849 to 896. That Ferus nor Luther then have no Po­stills on Palme-Sunday, when as they have 13 at the least, is a part of the Antipuritans See his p. 21 l. 14. Legend, worthy to be re­gistred inSee his p: 68. l. 16. St. Whetstones workes, in which Mr. Wid­dowes (as it seemes by this) is too well read.

6 Ibidem, he records, that Mr. Tyndall hath nothing but a Prologue on the Philippians: whereas in his English Bible, which the statute of 34 & 35 H. 8, c: 1: doth menti­on; he hath Notes upon this very Text of Phil: 2: 9: 10: (which Mr. Widdowes it seemes hath never read) where hee makes the subjection of all things unto Christ at last, the onely bowing at the name of Iesus intended in that Text.

7 Ibidem, he concludes, that because Petrus Mattheus writes the [...] of the Popes Constitutions, and Philip Matthaeus writes civil law; ergo there is no such booke as Matthaeus his Postills, which I have quoted: VVhereas if he had but viewed the very two first lines of the selfe­same Page 322. pag. of the Oxford Catalogue, out of which he hath quoted Petr: and Phil: Matthaeus, hee might have found Iohannes Matthaeus his Postills, in Epistolas Dominicales Viteburgae: 1581: reimprinted. Viteburgae 1584: where [Page 17] there is at p: 173: to 179: (if Mr. Widdowes understands what Dominica Palmarum, is in English) a Postill on Palme-Sunday. Besides him there is one M. Matthaeus Iudex, who hath written Postills on all the Dominicall Epistles, andSee ibid. fol. 184 to 192. on the Epistle on Palme-Sunday too: prin­ted islebij 1578: both these interpret this text of the Philippians, as I have vouched them. For this learned See his pag 1. line ult. Metaphysicall Divine then to conclude, that there is no such booke, as Matthaeus his postils, because Phil: and Petr: Matthaeus have writ none such, is but the grosse Nonsequel of a silly Ignoramus, who should have known more, and written lesse.

Ibidem, he writes, that Chytraeus hath no Postills: (for 8 he takes no holde that I can finde, of Chrytaeus, for Chy­traeus, which was but the Printers transposition of one letter.) Indeede there are no such Postils of his in the Oxford Catalogue; and thence grew this errour, with that of Luthers and Ferus not having Postils too. But Mr. Widdowes must know, that all printed bookes are not in the Oxford Catalogue: I have at least 50 my selfe, which the Oxford Catalogue (increased much since the last Im­pression) never mentions; and among the rest David Chytraeus his Postils on the Dominicall Epistles, printed Vitebergae 1576. is one; where p: 156 to 169: there is a Postill on Palme-Sunday, where he interprets the text of Phil: 2. 9 [...] 10. as I in my Appendix doe.

Ibidem, he writes, That Mr. Charke was but a Kentish 9 puritan: When as he was a reverendAnd the Le­cturer of Lin­colnes Inne. learned Divine, ap­pointed by the See the Con­ference at the Tower, &c. London 1583, the fourth daies Conference. State to dispute with Campian the Iesuite in the Tower: and if any man will be pleased to peruse his Conference, he shall finde him the acutest Disputant of all those learned men that conferred with him. These 8 last grosse oversights (worthy to be registred in the next new Impression of Ignoramus, or the shippe of Fooles) are included within the circumference of 15 lines: And how many such like may you then expect throughout the Booke? But I passe from these to worser Errours.

[Page 18] 10 Page 72, 73, he writes thus: That the ring in marriage is necessarily deduced from Matth: 19 v: 4, 5, 6. The signe of the Crosse, from Matth: 16, 24. Kneeling at the Lords Supper, from Yet when this Psalm was penned, there was no Sacra­ment to kneele at, much lesse to adore. Psal: 95, 6.I thought procession had not beene so ancient. Procession, from Mat: 28, 19. The Surplesse, from It seemes the Saints shal weare surples­ses in heaven. Rev. 19, 8. Standing at the Creed, from Ephes. 6. 14. The 4 cornered Cappe, (Risum teneatis?) from Ephes: 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. The penitentiall sheet, (which me thinkes he should never have ranked in equipage with the surplesse) from Matth: 11, 21. And then hee concludes thus, (though Durandus outSee his Ra­tionale Div. Offic. of whom he hath stolne it, dares not doe it.) These signes, which are expresse Scripture, (ô the monstrousSee his page 1, l ult. Me­taphisicall Divinity of this Page 2, l. ult, its his owne phrase. fanaticke Professour, who dares make these thing [...], any thing, Scripture) are univer­sall and so necessary Ceremonies of the Catholicke Church. And is it not time for you (good Mother) to packe away this Sonne of yours, (not toSee his p. 29 l. 19. Amsterdam, or New-England) but to Bedlam, for this his mad Divinity?

Page 25, 26. He argues, that bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty of the Text: and why? Spell, and then it's 11 thus by articulation. But that at the severall na­mings of Iesus in time of Di­vine service every knee or head shal bow, cannot bee found or spel­led out of this Text. At the name of Iesus every knee shall bow, &c. An Argumēt much like to that of the Papists Hoc est corpus meum, Mat: 26, 26. Ergo, the bread is the very reall body of Christ. Tu es Petrus, &c. Mat: 16, 18. Ergo, Peter is the head (they should rather say the foote, because the foundation) of the Church. This is all he hath written to prove it a duty of the Text: And this all is nothing, as I have largely proved in my Appendix.

Page 28. Hee writes, that, In nomine, & ad nomen: So the ori­ginall Fathers, and most La­tine & English Translatours reade it. See my Anti-Arminia­nisme, p. 192. In the name, or at the name of Iesus are both one: And 12 why so? Because in Grammar, In a place, or at a place, (viz. in a Taverne, or at a Taverne; in an Alehouse, or at an Alehouse) are both one to Mr. Widdowes; you may be sure to finde him in or at either, Non obstante the 75 Canon. But are in, and at a place all one? This is not alwayes true. In loco, and ad locum, differ much; though apud locum, and in loco, may accord. No man can say [Page 19] that, Our Father which art in heaven, is the same, with Our Father which art at heaven: in heaven, and at hea­ven are not all one. Starres in heaven, is good sence: stars at heaven, nonsence. Mr. Widdowes is in his Cappe, his Surplesse, Gowne and Hood, when hee reades 8 a clocke prayers, this is good English: (though even then hee bowes not at the name of Iesus, asThe 12 day of October last I heard Mr. Widdows read prayers at 8 of the clocke at night in St. Martins Church in Oxford; and though he read all the prayers standing, yet hee never so much as bow­ed his head or knee at the name of Iesus, (which he pro­nounced with a Stentorian voice) neither in the chapter, Creed, not Collects. I saw by experience since this booke of his was in the Presse, which makes mee think he beleeves this Doctrine of his to be erronious, be­cause he puts it not in practise;) But to say that he reades prayers at his Cappe, his Surples [...]e, Gowne or Hood, is almost as great a solecisme, as to averre, that Mr. Wid­dowes wit was not in, but at his head, when he made this curious observation. But what if in a place or at a place, in a time or at a time, &c. be all one: are therefore in no­mine, & ad nomen, in the name, and at the name of Iesus, all one? They differ in words, in phrase, cases, in sence; therefore they are not one. See it in instances. To pray in the name, and at the name; to beleeve in the name, and at the name; to cast out Divells in the name or at the name of Iesus, are different things: Therefore to bowIn nomine Iesu [...], &c. is ne­ver translated, at the name of Iesus in any place of Scrip­ture else. See Acts 2, 38. c. 7, 6, c 4, 18, c. 5, 40, c. 8, 16, c. 9, 27, 29, c. 1 [...], 18 1 Cor. 5, 4. Eph. 5, 20, Col 3, 17 2 Thess, 3, 6. Why then should it be thus englished here, when as it is hardly sence, or English, as these insta [...]cestestifie. in, or at his name, is not the same. If any should say, I be­leeve at God, for I beleeve in God At the name of God Amen, for In the name of God Amen; At the Kings name, for in the Kings name: Would not children hoote at him for a Nonsence Foole? Yet this is Mr. Widdowes his English, Grammar, and Divinity; much like his en­glishing of Athanasius his Latine, and others, in his 21, 22, and 23 pages, whom he englisheth as punctual witnes­ses for bowing at the name of Iesus, when as there is not one such word, or intimation of it in their Latine.

Page 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 82. He doth by way of neces­sary 13 inference teach us, That Iesus was more humbled, ha­ted, persecuted and derided of the Iewes, than Christ: (as if Iesus and Christ were not one person:) That the name of [Page 20] Iesus was more vilified and hated than the name of Christ; and therefore for this onely reason (which he much insisteth on) we must bow at the name of Iesus onely, not at the name of Christ, of Saviour, and the like. A false conclusion from dangerous premises, which sunder Christ and Iesus, who aresee Mat, 1, 16. Luke 2. 11. 26. Acts 18. 5. 1 Cor. 1. 13. one in all things, in humiliation, in passion, in exal­tation, in power, in Majesty, dominion and glory. If we looke upon our Saviours humiliation and passion, the Scripture informes us, that Christ was incarnate and born into the world, as wel as Iesus, Mat. 1, 16, c: 2. 4. Luke 2 11 That See Artic: of England 3, 4. of Ireland 30. accoidingly. Christ was mocked, crucified, humbled, despised, put to death for our sinnes, and nailed to the Crosse, (which is alwayes stiled1 Cor. 1, 17 Gal. 6, 12. 14. Phil. 2, 18. Col. 1, 7, 20. not Iesus his Crosse the Crosse of Christ) as well as Iesus: Mat: 26, 63, 67, 68. Acts 3, 18, c: 4, 26. Gal: 2, 20 c: 3, 13 c: 6, 14. Rom: 3: 8, c: 8, 34, c: 5, 8, c: 14, 9. 1 Cor: 15, 3, c: 1, 23 1 Pet: 1, 19, c: 2, 21, 23, 24, c: 3: 18, c: 4, 13, 14, 16. That we were redeemed, sprinkled from an evill conscience, justi­fied, and made nigh unto God, by the blood, the precious blood of Christ, [not Iesus:] 1 Pet: 1, 19. Hebr: 9, 14. Rom: 5, 8, 9, Gal: 2, 17. Ephes: 2, 13. That God was in Christ [not Iesus] reconciling the world unto himselfe, 2 Cor: 5, 19, 20. That Christ [not Iesus] redeemed and made us free, Gal: 3, 13, c: 5 1. Hence Luke 24, 26, & 46: Christ him­selfe speaks thus to his Disciples: OughtSee Acts 17. 3, c. 26. 22, 23. not Christ [not Iesus] to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? Thus it is written, and thus it behooveth Christ [not Iesus] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And hence the Minister by our Churches appoin­ment, in the administration of the holy Cōmmunion, saith thus: Take and eate this in remembrance that Not Iesus. Christ died for thee, &c. Drinke this in remembrance that Christs blood was shed for thee, &c. Christ therefore was hum­bled, suffered and did as much for us as Iesus; and there­fore in this regard deserves as much reverence, love and duty from us, as doth Iesus. If we reflect on Christs ex­altation; the Scriptures certifie us: First, thatSee the Collects on Ea­ster day which begin thus, Christ (not Ie­sus) is risen a­gaine, &c. & Artic. 4. Christ was raised againe from the grave; and that by his resur­rection 1 [Page 21] all his shall be raised up againe at the last: Rom: 6, 4. 1 Cor: 15, 12, 13, 14, 22, Col: 3, 1. Secondly, that Christ [not Iesus] is exalted to the right hand of God his Father,2 farre above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named, not onely in this world, but in the world to come, Angels, powers, Authorities, all things, being made subject to him: Eph: 1, 20, 21, 22. 1 Pet: 3, 21, 23. Col: 1, 7, to 28. c: 3, 1. 1 Cor: 15, 23, to 29. Thirdly, that God 3 hath quickened us together with Christ, [not Iesus] and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in hea­venly places with Christ, Eph: 1. 3. c: 2, 5, 6. Fourthly, that 4 God hath gathered together all things in Christ, [not Ie­sus] and that Christ [not Iesus] is all and in all: Eph: 1, 10. 23. Col: 3, 11. In this regard therefore Christ is as venera­ble, as worthy to be bowed to, as is Iesus If we consider the offices and titles of Christ, wee shall finde Christ as venerable every way as Iesus. For is Iesus a Saviour? So is Christ: Luke 2, 11. Iohn 4, 42. Eph: 5, 23. Phil: 3, 20. Is he a Mediatour? So is Christ: 1 Tim: 2, 5. 1 Iohn 2, 1. Is he the head of the Church? So is Christ: 1 Cor: 11, 3. Ephes: 4, 15. c: 5, 23. c: 1, 20, 22. Is he a King, a Lord, a King of Kings, and Lord of Lords? So is Christ, Acts 2, 36. Luke 23, 2, c: 2, 11. 1 Cor: 8, 6: 1 Tim: 6, 14, 15, 16: Col. 3, 24. Rev: 11, 15, c: 12, 10, c: 20, 4 [...] 6. & by our own Chur­ches confession after the Communion received; Glory be to god on high, &c. O Lord God, heavenly King, &c. for thou onely art holy, thou onely art the A good Cō ­ment on Phil. 2. 9, 10, 11. Lord, thou onely O Christ [not Iesus] with the holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Is he the Iudge of all men? So is Christ: whence the day of judgement is stiled the day of Christ, and the place of judgement, the judgement seat of Christ, [not Iesus] 2 Cor: 5, 10. Rom: 14, 9, 10, Phil: 1, 10 & 2 [...] 16. Is he the Sonne of God? So is Christ, Luke 9 20 [...] Acts 4. 37, Mat: 16, 16. Is hee God equall with his Father? So is Christ: Tit: 2. 13. 2 Pet: 1, 1. c: 2. 16, 17. and the secondSee Article of Ireland 19. Article of our Church. Is hee the Messias? So is Christ: Iohn 1 [...] 41. chap: 4. 25. [Page 22] There is nothing recorded in Scripture of the humilia­tion, passion, exaltation, offices, titles, or soveraignty of Iesus; but the very selfesame thing is recorded of Christ: Whence these two names,Witnes the common phra­ses in the new Testament; Iesus Christ, Christ Iesus, and the like. Iesus and Christ, are for the most part joyned together throughout the whole new Testament. If then wee respect the person, offices, passion, or exaltation of Iesus, we shall finde that he de­serves as much capping and bowing when he is called Christ, as when he is stiled Iesus. If wee now reflect upon the names of Christ and Iesus, as they have refe­rence to our Saviours person, we shall finde: First, that our Saviour was buffeted, spit upon and derided of the high Priests and Iewes by the name of See 1 Pet. 2 21, 22, 23. Christ, Matth: 26, 67, 68. not by the name of Iesus: and that they rent their cloathes, and crucefied him, not for that he called himselfe Iesus; but because he said he was Christ the Sonne of the living God, Matth: 26, 63, 64, 65. Secondly, that the Scripture when it speakes of our Saviours sufferings, doth alwayes stile them, the1 Pet, 4, 13 14, c. 5, 1, c. 2, 21, c. 3, 17, 18, 2 Cor. 1, 5, 6, 7 Col. 1, 24. & Acts 26, 22, 23 sufferings of Christ, not of Iesus. Thirdly, that the Saints which suffer hatred or persecution for our Saviours sake; doe suffer for him as he is stiled Christ, not Iesus: Witnesse 1 Cor: 4, 9 10, 11. Wee are made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men: We are fooles for Christ [not Iesus] sake: We are weake, we are dispised, we are naked, persecuted, re­viled, buffeted. And 2 Cor: 12, 10. Therefore I take plea­sure in infirmities, inreproaches, in necessities, in persecuti­ons, in distresses for Christ [not Iesus] sake. Witnes Iohn 9, 22. Where the Iewes agreed, that if any did confesse that our Saviour was Christ, [not Iesus] he should be put out of the Synagogue. & Mat: 24, 9. They shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you, and ye shalbe hated of all Na­tions for my Names sake. And what name is this? If any, then certainly the name ofCal. 6, 12. Lest they shold suffer persecu­tion for the Crosse of Christ. Christ, not Iesus: Witnesse, verse 5. Many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ: and verse 23, 24. If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, beleeve it not: For there shall arise false [Page 23] Christs, &c. Hence Hebr: 11, 24. We have mention of the reproach of Christ, [not Iesus.] Hence Col: 1, 24: St: Paul writes, That he did fill up that which is behinde of the af­flictions of Christ [not Iesus] in his flesh. Hence Phil: [...], 13: he stiles his fetters, his bonds in Christ, [not Iesus] and v: 20, 21, Christ shall be magnified in my body, that is, in my corporall sufferings for him; For to me to live is Christ, [not Iesus.] Yea hence both Paul and Peter (as if they had purposely written to resolve this point) in­forme us: Phil: [...], 29: That it is given to us in the behalfe of Christ [not Iesus] not onely to beleeve on him, but also to suffer for his sake. And 1 Pet: 4, 13, 14, 16. That if we be reproached for the name of Christ, [not Iesus] happy are w [...], inasmuch as we are partakers of christs sufferings. Therefore (saith he) if any man suffer as a Christian, (de­rived onely from the name of Christ) let him not be asha­med. The name therefore of Christ, [not Iesus] was the name in whichActs 4, 26, The Kings of the earth stand up, &c. against the Lord and against his Christ. Christ and Christians suffered most re­proach, contempt, aud persecution: and for this name did the Martyrs alwayes suffer in the primitive Church; as the recited Scriptures andSee Eusebi­us, Sozeman, Baronius, the Centuries; Ter­tulliani Apo­log & Plin, E­pist, l: 10, Ep: 97. Ecclesiasticall stories testifie. Mr. Widdowes his Doctrine therefore,Page 36 to 42. That Iesus was humbled and suffered more than Christ: That God one­ly in the name of Iesus humbled himselfe, and suffered shame and rebuke: and that therefore in the same name Ie­sus he will be most of all magnified to the worlds end, more than in any other Title; because no other name of his but Iesus [no not his name Christ] did suffer shame, reproach, It seemes by this, that the name of Iesus did onely die, and suffer for us, not his per­son; or else his name together with his person death and hell: And therefore for this one reason onely (for he insisteth on no other but this alone) we must bow at the name of Iesus onely, not of Christ: is a most false, absurd, erronious, if not wicked doctrine; which not onely 1 Cor: 1, 13. divideth Christ from Iesus, andDr: Whita­kers Answer to will: Raynolds p: 399. makes them different in degree and dignity; reviving the ancient Heresie of Cerinthus, who affirmed,Irenaeus advers: Haereses l: 1, c: 25. Epi­phanius contra haereses, Haeros. 28. Baroniu [...], & Spondanus, Anno 60, sect. 2, Anno 97, sect. 7. & the Centuries, 11. That Christ and Iesus were two; that Christ descended into Iesus after bap­tisme in the forme of a dove; that Christ flew backe againe [Page 24] out of Iesus at the time of his passion, and that Iesus onely suffered for us, not Christ, who continued spirituall and impassible. (An heresie, of which the sole bowers at the name of Iesus are farre more guilty, than their oppug­ners are of Arrianisme, which some ridiculously cast upon them, though themselves be most of all guilty of it, since Arrius denied not the eternal Deity of our Saviour, &c. under his name Iesus which he seldome or never mentioned; See Athana­sius, Hila [...]y, Nazienzen, Basil, Epipha­nius Eusebius Pamphilus, Socrates Scho­last. and others in their workes against the Arrians; & Baronius, and Spondanus, Anno 318. sect. 9. accordingly. but under his name, Sonne of God, Word, Wis­dome, Christ, and the like; at which namesBp. Andrews, Stengelius, Mr. Widdows, with others, in their places quoted in my Appen­dix. our opposites teach, men must not bow at all; and so are Arrians by their owne confession, if the not bowing at our Saviours names may make men Arrians; a conceit not heard of till of late.) But likewise contradicts the whole new Te­stament and the forequoted scriptures. For confutation of which I neede use no other texts, than Gal: 3. 13. Christ [not Iesus, asPage 37. Mr. Widdowes misrecites it] hath redee­med us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 4. Christ [not Iesus, as hee] was crucified through weaknesse, &c. ThePage 37. texts on which he grounds this Errour; And this very text of Philippians 2. which as it begins, continues and ends with the name of Christ [not Iesus] See v. 1. 16. & 30. So it joynes Christ and Iesus together in the very depth of humiliation: v. 5. &c. Let the same minde be in you which was in Christ Ie­sus, &c. and in the height of exaltation: v. 11. That every tongue should confesse that Iesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. And so are they: Acts 4, 10 12. a place much stood upon in this controversie. Christ Iesus, both named and conjoy­ned in the clause of debasement: Iesus Christ is Lord; both mentioned and united in the clause of advancement in this very originall text, on which all the controversie is founded. Whence the Contents of this chapter in our authorized English Bibles, runne thus: He exhorteth them to unity and all humblenesse of minde by the example of Christs [not Iesus] humility and exaltation. All which doth give a fatal overthrow to this brainsick dream; That Iesus was more humbled, and so more honoured than Christ: [Page 25] and puts a period to the present controversie, which hath no other pillar to support it but this notorious errour; and that other coupled with it, page 37. to wit, That Ie­sus is the greatest name of God, proposed to us to worship, &c. because it was humbled most, and therefore most ad­vanced above all other names, yea above the name of God, or Christ. The falsenesse of which position that you may more evidently discerne, I shall here propound some un­answerable Arguments, to prove; That the name of Ie­sus is not more honourable, more worthy cap and knee; yeaSee Bp. Ba­bing tons Ex­position of the Catholicke faith p. 196, 196, 197. where this point is excel­lently proved. not so eminent, so glorious, and so not so venerable among Christians, as the name of Christ.

First, the name Iesus is onely aBp. An­drewes p 475, &c. Salmeron Tom. 3, Tract. 37 proper personall 1 name, imposed on our Saviour, to distinguish him from other men: whereas the name Christ, is aBp. Babing­ton: qua l. name of office, including all his severall offices of King, Priest and Prophet, to Acts 4, 26, 27. c. 10, 38. Heb. 18, 9. Psal. 45, 7. 8. Luke 4, 18. Isay 62, 1. which he was anoynted: As therefore the names of Emperour, King, Prince, Earle, Lord-Keeper, &c. are farre more honourable than the names of Henry, Charles, Iohn, Thomas, &c. which are common to the meanest subjects; because the first are titles of honour and office; the other onely ordinary proper names impo­sed for distinction sake. Even so must the name of Christ, a name of office, of unction, be far more honourable than Iesus; a name thoughMat. 1, 21. originally derived from the office of a Saviour, yet imposed on him at his nativity as a proper name, to difference him from other men.2

Secondly, That name which is peculiar to our Savi­our as a Saviour, is more honourable than that which is common to him with other men. But the name Christ, is a nameMat 1, 16. Luke 2, 11 See Argument 4. Yea Christs un­ction authori­zed, enabled him to be a Ie­sus, a Saviour, a King, &c. peculiar to our Saviour as a Saviour: none ever being stiled Christ in Scripture, but hee alone. VVhereas the name Iesus wa [...] common unto others, viz. To Iesus the sonne of Nun, Hebr, 4, 8. To Iesus surnamed Iustus, Col. 4, 11. To Iesus the sonne of Iosedech, Hag. 1. 1. Ezra 3. 2. To Iesus the sonne of Sirach, The Prologue and Title to Ecclesiasticus. andSee Iosephus Baronius, Ni­cephorus, Epi­phanius, & o­thers. to others. Therefore it is [Page 26] more honourable than Iesus.

3 Thirdly, that name which was given to Christ in re­gard of his incarnation and humanitie onely, is not so excellent, so venerable, as that which is attributed to him in respect of both his natures. But the name, Iesus, was given to our Saviour in regard of his incarnation and hu­manity onely: Mat: 1. 21. 25. Luke 1, 31. c: 2, 21. VVhere­as hisIesus pro­prium nomen est assumptae carnis; Christus est nomen dig­nitatis. Beda Exposit, in c. 1, Mat. Tom. 5, Col. 1. Hoc no­men Iesus sig­nificat solam naturam hu­manam, sed hoc nomen Christus dat intelligere utramque naturam, in que intelli­gitur Divinitas ungens, & humanitas uncta. Aquinas 3. parte, Quaest. 16, Artic. 5, & Quaest. 17 Artic, 1. See Ire [...]aens l: 3, c. 20 & the second Article of our Church accordingly. name Christ, was given him in respect of both his natures: Acts 10, 38. Hebr: 1, 8, 9. See here page 21, 22. & Vrsini Catech: pars 2, Quest: 31, p: 204. Ergo, it is not so excellent, so venerable as his name Christ.

4 Fourthly, That name, which doth difference our Savi­our from all others who were called Iesus, and give him an excellency, a precedency above them all, must needs be more venerable and excellent than the name Iesus only, which doth not simply of it selfe either distinguish or advance our Saviour above all others of that name. But this name ChristSee Bishop Babingtons Exposition of the Catholicke faith, p. 196, 197, accor­dingly. doth distinguish our Saviour from all others who were stiled Iesus, and gives him an excel­lency, a precedency above them all. Witnesse, Mat. 1. 16. Of whom was borne Iesus which is called Christ. Luke 2, 11. Vnto you is borne a Iesus, or Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. Matth: 27, 17. Iesus which is called Christ. Acts 2, 36. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Iesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ. Acts 17, 3: & 18, 5, 28: Paul preached and testified both to the Iewes and Gentiles, and convinced them mightily, that Iesus was the Christ. 1 Iohn 2, 22 Who is a lyar, but he who denieth that Iesus is the Christ? 1 Iohn 5, 1: Whosoever beleeveth that Iesus is the Christ, is borne of God. Iohn 20, 31, These things are written, that ye might beleeve that Iesus in the Christ the Sonne of God, and that beleeving ye might have life through his name. All which [Page 27] doe likewise imply, that Christ, is a title of office, more honourable by farre than the bare name of Iesus: Ergo, it must needes be more venerable and excellent than the name Iesus is.

Fifthly, That name by which our Saviour was most of 5 all confessed, acknowledged, and enquired after, and by which his kingdome and power are most set forth in Scripture, is his most honourable name. But our Saviour was most of all confessed, acknowledged, enquired after, and his kingdome and power most of all set forth in Scripture by his nameYea Satur­nius, Carpo­crates, Cerin­thus, Marcus, Marcion, Cer­don, Apelles, Theodotus, the Ebionites, Sa­mosatenians, Nestorians, & other hereticks; are reprehen­ded by the Fa­thers, for deny­ing the Deity, the humanity, the two natures &c. of Christ, (not Iesus.) See Tertul. De Prae­script. advers. Haereticos: Ire­naeus, & Epi­phanious advers. Haereses; Au­gustine de Hae­resibus; Euse­bius, Nicepho­rus, Sozeman, Theodoret, Ba­ronius, the Centuries, & other Ecclesia­sticall histo­ries; and Mr. Rogers analysis on the second Article of our Church, Propos. 1: therefore it was the most knowne name of our Saviour. See Rom. 15, 19, 20; 1. Cor. 1, 23, c. 10, 4, 16. Col: 1. 27. c. 2. 8; yea the name of our Saviour as he is God, though some absurdly, if not heretically deny it.Christ, not Iesus. Hence the Magi, Mat: 2, 4, inquire where Christ [not Iesus] should be borne. Hence Iohn Baptist, when the people enquired who he was, confessed, that he was not the Christ, [not Ie­sus.] Iohn 1, 20, & 2, 28: Hence the people confesse, that our Saviour was the very Christ, &c. Iohn 7, 26, 27, 31, 41. Hence the woman of Samaria demanded, Is not this the Christ? and the Samaritans themselves replyed, Now we beleeve and know, that this is indeed the Christ, [not the Iesus] the Saviour of the world. Iohn 4, 25, 29, 42: Hence the Priest and Pharises demanded of him, whether hee were the Christ or not. Mat: 26: 63: Luke 22, 67: Hence the Divells themselves cryed out, and said, Thou art Christ the Sonne of God, for they knew that he was Christ. Luke 4, 41: Hence the Angels tell the Shepheards, that there was borne to them a Saviour, which was Christ [not Iesus] the Lord. Luke 2, 11: & the Apostles being demanded of our Saviour, who he was; make this reply by Peter in all their names, Thou art Christ, [not Iesus] the Sonne of the li­ving God: Thou art the Christ of God. Mat: 16, 16: Luke 9, 20: Iohn 6, 69: Hence Acts 2, 36, he is said to be made both Lord and Christ: and Acts 4, 26: The Kings of the earth stand up, and the Rulers are gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ, not Iesus. Hence, Rev: 11, [Page 28] 15. There were great voices in heaven, saying,These subse­quent texts doe lively discipher the power and kingdome of Christ, by his name Christ, not Iesus The King­domes of this world are become the Kingdomes of the Lord, and of his Christ [not Iesus] And Revel; 12, 10: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the Kingdome of God, and the power of his Christ, &c. Rev: 20, 4, 6. And I saw a throne, &c. and they lived and reigned with Christ a thou­sand yeares: They shall be Priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reagne with him a thousand yeares. Hence S. Paul proclaimeth; Rom. 1, 16 That he was, not ashamed of the Gospell of Christ:1 Cor. 1, 23 c. 2, 2. That hee desired to know nothing but Christ crucified:Ephes: 3, 8 That he preached to the Gentiles the un­searchable riches of Christ:Phil: 3. 7, 8. That hee accounted all things losse and dung, that he might winne Christ:Phil 1, 23. That he desired to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, which was best of all. All which with infinite other texts of Scrip­ture, (together with all the This all their Indexes testify in which Chri­stus, is 20 times and more re­cited for one Iesus. Fathers, and our owne Articles of England, Artic 2, 3, [...], & Artic. of Ireland 29, where our Sa­viour is al­wayes stiled Christ, but never Iesus. Articles, who more commonly stile our Saviour in all their Writings Christ than Iesus) sufficiently confirme my Minor, and so by consequence the conclusion too.

6 Sixthly, That name of our Saviour which denominates his Gospell, his Sacraments, his Church, his Apostles, his Ministers, his Saints, his Kingdome; must needs be more venerable and glorious unto Christians, than that name which denominates none of these. But the name of Christ not Iesus denominates all these. First, it denomi­nates his Gospell, which is stiled the word, and Gospell of 1 Christ, the unsearchable riches of Christ, the sweete savour of Christ, yea Christ himselfe, [not Iesus:] Rom: 1, 16. [...]: 15, 19 20 29. 1 Cor: 9, 12, 18. 2 Cor: 2, 12. c: 4, 14. Gal: 1, 7, 15, 16, 18, Phil: 1, 27. 1 Thes: 3, 2 [...] 2. Thes: 1, 8. Eph: 3, 4, 2 6, 8. c: 4, 20. Acts 24, 24. 1 Cor: 1, 23. 2 Iohn 9. Second­ly, it denominates his Sacraments, which are stiled theRom. 6, 4. 1 Cor: 1, 17. Ga [...]: 3, 27.Baptisme of Christ, and1 Cor. 10, 16the communion of the body and blood of Christ, [not Iesus.] Thirdly, it denominates his Church, which is stiled, the Church, and Churches of 3 Christ, Rom: 16, 16. not of Iesus. The body, flesh wife, and members of Christ, 1 Cor: 12, 7. Ephes: 4, 12, 13, 15. c: 5, 23, to 33. Col: 1, 24. not of Iesus: Yea Christ himselfe [Page 29] 1 Cor: 12, 22. As the body is one, &c. so also is Christ, not Ie­sus.4 Fourthly, it denominates his Apostles and Ministers, which are stiled, the 1 Cor. 4, 1 2 Cor. 11, 13, 23. Col, 1, 7. 1 Thes 2, 6. Apostles, Ministers, Gal. 1, 10. c. 6, 6. Col. 4, 12. ser­vants, and 2 Cor. 5, 19, 20. Embassadours of Christ, not Iesus:1 Cor. 4, 15. In­structers in Christ; 2 Cor. 2, 14 15. a sweet savour of Christ; and2 Cor. 8, 23, 5. the glory of Christ, not of Iesus. Fifthly, it denominates his Saints, who are stiled, Christians, [not Iesuites] Acts 11, 26: c: 26, 28. 1 Pet: 4, 16: The members of Christ, Eph: 5, 30, 31; 32: 1 Cor. 6, 15. not of Iesus. The Epistle of Christ, 2 Cor: 3, 3: not of Iesus: Heires annexed with Christ, and heires of God through Christ, [not Iesus.] Rom: 8, 17. Gal: 4, 7. Babes in Christ, 1 Cor: 3, 1: & Ser­vants 5 of Christ, Gal: 1, 1 [...]. c: 6, 6. Ephes: 6, 5, 6. Hence Christians are said, to be in Christ and Christ in them, Gal: 2, 20. Ephes: 3, 17. 2 Cor: 5, 17. To have Christ formed in them, Gal: 4, 19. To be baptised into Christ, and to put on Christ, Gal: 1, 21. c: 3, 37. Rom: 16, 5, 7. To be Christs, Gal: 3. 29. c: [...], 24. 1 Cor: 3, 23. c: 11. 1. 1 Cor: 15, 23. 2 Cor: 10, 7. To be all one in Christ, Gal: 3, 28. Ephes: 1, 10. To be in obedience and subjection unto Christ, [not Iesus] E­phes: 5. 23, 24. c: 6, 5, 6. 2 Cor: 9, 13. & 10, 5, 7. as to their soveraigne Lord and Master. And to be Priests of Christ, [not of Iesus] Rev: 20, 6: c. 1, 6. Sixthly, it deno [...]nates 6 his Kingdome; which is stiled, the Kingdome of Christ, Ephes: 5, 5. Rev: 11, 15. not of Iesus. Therefore it must needes be more venerable and glorious among Christi­ans, than the name Iesus is; which gives no such deno­minations to them to these, as it.

Lastly, Christians have as much cause to reverence & 7 honour the name of Christ as Iesus. For, as the Scrip­ture saith,See p. 20, 21 22, 23. That Christ died for them, Ephes. 5, [...], 25. loved, saved, re­deemed them, and the like: So it records, That Christ gives them light, Eph: 5, 14. That Christ hath made thē free, Gal: 5, 1. That Christ doth strengthen thē to doe all things Phil: 4, 13. That Christ doth forgive them, Col: 3, 13. That they serve the Lord Christ, Col: 3, 24. That Christ is their con­solation, 2 Cor: 1, 5. Phil: 2, 1. That Christ is in them the hope of glory, Col: 1, 27. That Christ is their life, and that their lives are hid with Christ in God, Col: 3, 3, 4. [Page 30] That Christ liveth in them, and that they live by him, Gal: 2, 20: That Christ dwells in their hearts by faith, Ephes: 3, 17: That Christ is for them an high Priest of good things to come, Hebr: 9, 11: That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himselfe, 2 Cor: 5, 19: That Christ loveth them; that this love of Christ to them surpasseth knowledge; and that nothing shall be ever able to sever them from Christs love, which constraineth them to live unto him, Ephes: 5, 25 2 Cor: 5, 14: Eph: 3, 13: Rom: 8, 35. That Christ is all and in all, yea all unto them: Col: 3, 11: Eph: 1, 20, 23. Which con­siderations made Paul to prise Christ so much; as toPhil. 3, 7, 8. count all things losse and dung to win Christ; and to desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which was best of all. Phil: 1, 23. Therefore certainly, Christ, and his name Christ, (which Euseb. de vi­ta Constant. l. 1, cap: 25. Ba­ronius & Spon­danus, Ann [...] 312, sect: 4 name the Emperour Constantine, with other Christian Emperours, and their Christian soldiers did so much ho­nour, as to engrave and weare it both in their helmets and their ensignes: whereas we never reade that they gave such honour to this name Iesus:) are as honourable, as great, as worthy reverence, capping, and bowing, as Ie­sus, or his name Iesus, which comes short of his name Christ, in all these respects. And let this for ever silence the s [...]stitious bowers at the name of Iesus, who en­grosse all reverence and honour to the name of Iesus a­lone, preferring it above all other Titles of our Saviour; yea before his stile of Christ, of Saviour, which is the same with Iesus, and doth more really and fully expresse his office of a Saviour, (it being the veryLuke 1, 47. c. 2, 11. Iohn 4, 42. 2 Pet: [...] 1, 11. 1 Iohn 4, 14 Acts 5, 31. c. 13 23. Eph. 5; 23 Phil. 3, 20. 1 Tim. 4, 10. Tit. 1, 4. c. 2, 13 c. 3, 4, 6. title of that office in the Scripture) than his name Iesus doth.

14 But to returne againe to your Sonnes absurdities: Page 34, he affirmes, That Angels and Saints in heaven doe bow at the name of Iesus. A confident assertion of aSee his p. 1, l. ult. Me­taphysicall Divine; who in my hearing preached twice or thrice so learnedly of Angels, (the chiefe subject of his elevated metaphysicall contemplations) in St. Maries in Oxford, that he preached most of his Auditours out of the Church. But admit Mr. Widdowes out of his inti­mate [...] [Page 31] acquaintance with the Angels knowes this for certaine, (which neither he, nor any other man can ever prove) that Angels and Saints in heaven doe bow their knees at every naming of Iesus: yet how can he prove his second position, page 34, That Divells and Reprobates bow at this name, as stubborne prisoners. I hope hee was never as yet the Divels Chaplaine, This he, and his Pupills oft reported, when I was resident in Oxford. (though he hath oft disputed and combated with him in his study hand to hand;) that hee so knowingly, so confidently avers, that Divells and Reprobates bow at the name of Iesus in hell: VVhich bowing asPage 19, 75 76, 88 himselfe records, being a duty of the Text in time of divine service only, disproves this idle dreame of his. For, who ever heard? who ever read divine ser­vice in hell as Chaplaine to the Divell? If then there be no divine service heard or read in hell, (as I beleeve there will be none till Mr. Widdowes chaunts it) then question­lesse there is no bowing at the name of Iesus there, a du­ty, a ceremony in time of divine service onely, as this Au­thour writes: who can never prove, that Divells bow at the name of Iesus in hell, but by some speciall revela­tion frō the Divel, or those spirit raised up from thence, which long since frayed him out of his little wits.

To passe by his grosse falsification of Origen on Rom: 15 14: whom he brings in, writing, page 54, that we must bow at the name of Iesus, because he is humble: when as Bishop Andrewes and himselfeSee Dr. Wil­let & Pareus on Rom. 14, who quote O­rigen against this litterall bowing at the name of Iesus. confesse, in the very selfe-same page; and page 21, 90: that Origen of all the other Fathers is against them: together with his corrupting of Chry­sostome, page 62, line 16, 17, 18: andSee here p. 7, 8. of Athanasius, and the Councell of Ephesus, page 76, 77, in the very selfe-same manner; when as neither of them writes one word of bowing at the name of Iesus in the alledged places, as the perusall of them in their workes, and the Survey of the Councell of Ephesus, (whichThe words of which Co [...] ­cell are these, Si quis audet dicere assumptum hominem coadorari cum Deo verbo oportere, &c. ac non potius una adoratione veneratur Emmanuelem vnam (que) ei glorificationem depen­dit, anathema sit. Surius Con. Tom. 1, p. 606, 607, Can. 8. anathematizeth those [Page 32] onely, which did co [...]dore the humanity of our Saviour with his Deity, and not rather Emmanuel, God and man, with one adoration: there being neither the name Iesus, nor one word of bowing (much lesse of bowing at the name of Iesus) in the 8. Canon of that Councell, which he vou­cheth) will fully evide [...]ce. Nor yet to remem [...]er his strange Divinity, page 40, That Iesus his name was given him twice; once till death, afterwards for ever: and that the Disciples for saking, and Peters denying of Christ, was a death of his name Iesus. Or page 59, l: 10, 11, 12: That we must bow at the name of Iesus more then is required by Phil: 2: Isay 45: or Rom: 14: (the chiefe texts on which this duty is (thoughOur Eng­lish Bibles, doe all expound Phil: 2, 9, 10, by Isay 45, 23. & Rom: 14, 10 11; and so doe all Exposstours too. If then Phil. 2, 9, 10; that in the name of Iesus every knee should bow, &c be the same with Isay 45, 23. & Rom. 14 10, 11; As I live, saith the Lord, or, I have sworne by my selfe, &c, that unto me every knee shalbow, as all Com­mentators ac­knowledge; the to bow in the name of Iesus, is nothing else but to submit, or bowe to Christ himself, or to the power and scepter of Christ, as God, as Lord, & Iudge of all; & not to bow at every severall recitall of his name Iesus; a ceremony not heard of in the primitive Church, not yet universally received in all moderne Churches: and therfore not the bowing of every knee intended in these Scrip­tures. absurdly) grounded:) which to recite alone is to confute. I shall request you to take no­tice of 21 Scriptures, which he hath mangled, falsified, and grossely misapplyed; that so I may meet with him for his notorious slander;^b That I have falsified 15, nay 36 Texts of Scripture, and above 80 Authours; which he onely writes, but prove; not in any one particular. Page 9, l: 27: he misrecites the 1 Cor: 16, 22; omitting the name Christ, to adde more reverence to the name Iesus. Page 16, l: 12, 13: hee writes; That bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty required at Psal: 95, 6; O come let us wor­ship and bow downe, and kneele before the Lord our Maker. As if the name Iesus (which was^c given to our Savi­our many hundred yeares after the penning of this Psalme) were our Lord and Maker intended in this verse. Page 27 l: 17, 18, he brings in the 24 Elders Rev: 5, 12, 13, bowing at the name of Iesus in time of this life: when as the text records onely, that they worshipped the Lambe, &c. not Iesus, or his name: and that in heaven not on earth, for ought that there appeares to contradict it. Page 31, l. 18. he argues thus from Acts 3, 15. Ye killed the Prince of life; Ergo, no name was ever so abused as the name of Iesus; [Page 33] and therefore wee must bow at it more than at any other name. Page 37, l: 34, 35, he falsifieth Gal: 3, 13: & 1 Cor: 13, 4; foysting in Iesus into them, in stead of Christ, when as the name Iesus is not mentioned in these texts, but Christ alone. Page 38, l: 18; he concludes out of Acts 4, 12, That Iesus is the onely Hee applies that to the name, which the Scripture attributes one­ly to the per­son of Iesus, whose person, merits, offices, and intercessi­on onely save us, not his name Iesus, as this Clerke dath dreame. name by which we are sa­ved: as if the bare name of Iesus onely (not the person, power, or merits of Iesus, the only name intended in this verse, as all Expositours on it accord;) were our onely Saviour: Yet the name Iesus is not mentioned in this verse; and verse 10, doth joyne the name of Christ and Ie­sus together; [Iesus Christ of Nazareth, &c] adding no more vertue to the one than to the other. Page 38, l. 31, 32; he falsifieth the 2 Cor: 5, 19: God was in Iesus reconci­ling the world to himselfe: whereas the text is, God was in Christ, not Iesus. Page 48, he misrecites 6 Scriptures together: viz. Eph: 1, 10, 19, 20, 21; where he reads Iesus, for Christ; the text being Christ, not Iesus: Matth: 7, 23, 24, where the text is Lord, not Iesus: the 1 Cor: 15, 25, where the name Iesus is not once mentioned, but Christ alone, from verse 12, to 26: yet hee reades it Iesus, &c. not Christ: Eph: 4, 7, 8, & Col: 2, 15; where he forgeth in Iesus See v. 3, 5, 8, 11, 17, 20. for Christ: And all to prove Iesus, qua Iesus, a confirming Iesus to Angels, a commanding Iesus to Di­vels, and an exalted and triumphing Iesus over Divells, out of these texts: which no wayes warrant his colle­ction; and stile him onely by the name of Christ, or Lord, not Iesus; and so make quite against him. Page 55, l. 10, he applies Rev: 21, 24, to Iesus, which the text, with all Interpreters expresly apply, to the City, the Church, and new Ierusalem, in the precedent verses, and can be applied to no other. Page 55, l: 21, hee againe corrupts, Ephes: 1, 20, 21, exchanging Iesus for Christ: and page 73, hee perverts no lesse than 7 severall texts together, as grossely, as Papistically as Durandus, or any other Papist ever did; Which Scriptures I shall here passe over, be­cause I have touched themSee page 18 before. These severall [Page 34] Scriptures, with sundry others, hath this monstrously learned Divine corrupted, falsified, and wilfully perver­ted, to draw on capping & bowing at the name of Iesus; a duty which theSee my Ap­pendix. primitive Church, andErrat autē is qui a via quam Patrum electic mon­stravit a berrat: Hormise [...] Papae Epist. ad Possessorem. Bib. [...]P. T. 6. pars 1, p: 375. Fathers never heard of; and which most Protestant Churches quite disclaime: and so are Arrians, Puritans, Schismatickes Nonconformists, Disputers against the holy Ghost, yea rebels, traytors, enemies to Iesus, and to our Soveraigne his Vice-gerent, and I know not what besides, if Mr. Wid­dowes Divinity, or * Confutation may be credited; which makes bowing at the names of Iesus, (not the adoration of our Saviour Iesus, God and man, to whom we yeeld all the divine honour and worship that himself requires, as our prayers to him, our whole dependance on him, our publike and private worship of him, &c. testifie, though we bow not superstitiously at his name;) a mo­rall command, a necessary, an universall Ceremony which God requires in all Churches, not onely for a day or a yeare, but for ever, &c. Page 74. though few but Papists and Popish Churches ever practised it, and these but lately, as I shall prove anon.See p: 1, 6, 7 8, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, 39 40, 42, 44, 45, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 67, 68, 70, 74, 78, 79, 80, 83, 86, 89, 90, where hee thus railes outright a­gainst me, and all that bow not at the name of Iesus.

16 This Sonne of yours, is not only thus absurd, but Po­pish too. To omit his ridiculous Popish trash, p: 71, 72, 73: Page 34, he hath this Romish passage; The Church is the place of Gods presence, &c. where his Priests sacrifice their owne, and the militant Churches prayers, and the Lords Supper, to reconcile us to God offended with our dai­ly sins: [...]rgo the Priests of the Church of England, (espe­cially those who erect adore, and cringe to Altars) are sacrificing Priests; and the Lords Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice, sacrificed by these Priests for mens daily sins. And is this your Doctrine, or our Churches, Mother?

17 Page 36, to 42, he often harpes on this Popish string; That Christ Iesus by his sufferings did merit something to himselfe; and among other things, this in speciall; the ex­altation, adoration, of and bowing unto his name Iesus. See Dr. Field, Of the Church Booke 5, chap. [...], reimprin­ted at Oxford, 1628, accor­dingly. A Doctrine which Calvin, Marlorat, Dr. Fulke, Mr. Cart­wright, [Page 35] and generally all Protestant Divines on Phil: 2, 9, 10, doe utterly condemne as Popish, as derogatory to the greatnes & freenes of Christs love to his: Yea a Doctrine which this forgetfull Angelical Dr. (who oft confutes himself) doth fully contradict, p. 37, 38; where he writes [...] That God rewarded Iesus freely; that his name Iesus was [...] free gift, and freely given to him, &c. therefore not [...] ­ted by him.

18. Page 89, he writes; That there is good reason why we should bow at or towards the Communion-table, though there be neither Scripture nor Canon that bindes us thus to bow: because the Communion-table is the Chaire of state of the Lord Iesus, and his chiefest place of presence in our Church: because we may bow at his Majesties chaire of e­state, who is but Iesus his Deputy: and because the Com­munion-table is the signe of the place where our Saviour was most despised, dishonoured and crucified.

It is strange, that he who could avouch expresse Scrip­ture, for ringing of bells, procession, the 4 cornered cap, the penitentiall sheet, &c. page 72, 73; should finde neither Scripture nor Canon for bowing to, or at Communion-tables and Altars: but stranger, that he should justifie this bowing; there being neither Scripture nor Canon for it; when as there is both Scripture, [...] Statute, and [...] Ca­non to, against it. The Scriptures, we know, doe positively condemne as grosse idolatry, the bowing at, to or before any Images, Pictures, Idols, and Altars, Levit: 26, 1. Exod: 20, 5. c: 23, 24. Deut: 5. 7, 82 Kings 17, 35. Numb: 25, 2. Iosh: 23, 16. Isay 2, 8, 9. 1 Kings 19, 18. 2 Chron: 25, 14. Yea our owne [...] the [...] of idela­try, and of the time & place of prayer, p [...] 31 10 Homilies, 3 Edd 6. c. 10. Statutes, Canons, 1571. p. 19, Ca­nons, 1603. Can: 82; See Arti: 22, Artic. of I [...]eland, 53. Canons, and Iewel, Mor­ton, Tyndall, Barnes. Willet, Raynolds, Or­merod & others Wri­ters, as they expresly inhibit the setting up of any Images, Pictures, Crucifixes, or Altars in Churches, (a thing now much in use:) so they instruct us likewise,The Homi­ly against tho perill of Idola­try, part 3, page 41, to 76. & p. 131. Ormerod his picture of a Papist, p. 1. to 15. and so all Protestant Writers on the 2. Commande­ment, from these words, Thou shalt not bow downe to them, &c. See 2 Chro, 25, 14. That the bowing or kneeling before an image, crucifix, picture, or Al­tar, & the very bowing to them, is Idolatry: And why then should not the bowing at, to, or before the Communion-table (which is no where commanded by the Scripture) [Page 36] bee Idolatry too? Francis de Croy in his first Con­formity, cap. 24, with others testifie. The Paganizing Popish Priests have borrowed this bowing toSee Tho: Beacons Re­liques of Rome c: 24, fol: 82, when Altars first came in, & Dr. Ray­nolds, & Fran cis de Croy, in their quoted places. Al­tars, from the Pagans; a practise much in use among them: witnesse their spurious D. Iacobi Divina Missa, Coloniae A [...]g [...]ip. 1618. Bibl. Patrum Tom. 1. p, 15. F. 19. D. their forged Diony­sius Areopagita, De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. lib: c: 5. lbid: p: 132, C, H, 13 [...], A. their Rusticus Diaconus Cardinalis, contra Achephalos Disputatio. Bib. Patr. Tom: 6, pars 2, p: 125, G: 229, E: their Stephanus Eduensis Episc: De Sa­cramento Altaris, cap: 12, Bib: Pat: Tom: 10, p: 416, C. Ho­norius Augustodunensis De Antiquo ritu Missae, l: 2, c: 30, Bib. Patr. Tom. 12, pars 1, p: 1054: Radulphus Tun­grensis de Canonum Observantia, Propositio 23, Bib: Pat: T: 14, pag: 250, B. Eugenius Roblesius De Authoritate et Ordine Officij Mazabarici, lib: cap: 27, 28. Bib: Patr: Tom: 15, p. 781, G, H. Alexius Menesius Missa Chri­stianorum apud Indos, Ibid: p: 793, 795, 796, their idola­trous Masse-books, Durandus, with other Authours, and common experience; all which sufficiently testifie the Papists daily practise of bowing unto Altars. From which, some superstitious Romanizing Protestants, without either Scripture or Canon to authorize them, have of late begun to bow and cringe to Communion-tables, (or in truth to new erectedCondem­ned by the Clu [...]hof [...]ng [...] land See my Appendix; the two last pages: Honuly 3. a­gainst he Pe­rill of Idolatry. p. 47. Hom: 2, of the time & place of Pray­er p: 131, Tho­mas Beacons Romes Relicks c. 81, 82 Bishop Babington, Notes on Ex­od 20, & 27, p: 279, 307. Dr Willets Synop­sis Papismi, Century 2, Error. 53, 54. The 82 Canon Francis de Croy his 1 Conformity, cap: 24. Pelichdorfius contra Waldenses cap: 24, Bibl. Patrum, Tom: 13. p. 325, 1, Ed: 6, c: 1, & 1 Eliz. c: 2; condemnes them likewise: by vertue of which, and of E. 6, c 10, the late erecters of Altars, and Images may [...]and ought to be indicted and punished, to avoid the new incroachments of Idolatry. high Altars, as they stile them:) which how it differs from Papists Altar-adorations, or from their bowing and cringing to Pi­ctures and Crucifixes, or how it can be excused from superstition, wil-worship, & idolatry, I cannot yet conje­cture. Bowing before the Altar, or Communion Table, if the^g Papists, or^h Mr. Cozens may be credited, is no lesse than adoration; and I presume Mr Widdowes (who makes bowing at the name of Iesus, a part of divine [Page 37] worship) intends it to be no lesse. Being therefore not commanded in Scripture, it must needs be Idolatry, or will-worship at the least, and so to be abhorred not­withstanding the three Popish (if not foolish) reasons produced for to justifie it; which I shall now examine, For the first of them: That the Communion-table is the Lord Iesus his chaire of Estate, &c. therefore wee may (we must) lawfully bow unto it: it is an absurd argu­ment. Our Lord Iesus his chaire of estateActs 2, 33, 34, c: 7, 56. R [...]. 8, 34 Psal: 110 1. Eph: 1, 20. Col. 3, 1. Hebr: 1, 3, 13. c: 10, 12. cap. 12. 2. 1 Pet 3, 22. is onely at his Fathers owne right hand, were he now sits and raig [...]es in glory: Psa. 103, 19 Psal. 11, 4. Isay 66, 1. Acts 7, 49, c: 17, 24. Heaven is his throne, earth but his foote­stoole. If he hath any throne or chaire of estate on earth, it is in the hearts and soules of his elect. in which he Ephes: 3, 17. Gal: 2, 20. Isay 57, 15. Rev: 3, 20. dwells, andMat: 12, 28 Luk 1, 33. Col: 3, 15. raignes. He is on the Communion ta­ble, (and that onely when the consecrated bread and wine at the Sacrament, are upon it, not atAnd yet out obsequious su­perstitious cringers bow unto it then. other times) not as a King in a royall throne, but as a1 Cor: 11, 24, 25, 26. crucified Sa­viour, a1 Cor: 11, 24, to 30. Iohn 6, 47, to 64. And who ever worshipped or bowed to his meat, or table? spirituall repast, which our soules by faith must feede on: and even then, he is not so much preser [...] at or on the Communion-table, as in the Ministers, the receivers hand andEph: 3, 17. heart; as in the bread and wine, the1 Cor: 11, 25, 26, 27. Chalice, and Cup, which no men bow to. This first reason therefore is both ridiculous and erronious, The second, The men may bow to the Kings chaire of E­state, &c. as it is a meereSee the Rhemists notes Phil: 2, sect. 2; & William Reynolds ibid. Popish cavill, which^s Protestants oft have answered; so it is impertinent to the present purpose, because the Kings chaire of estate, and so the bowing to it, is but a civill thing; whereas the Communion-table (made^* of wood, (not stone) is a religi­ous implement^t of Gods owne appointment, ^u stāding anciently,^* as now it ought, in the very midst, not at the [Page 38] east end of the Church: and so the genuflection, or in­clining of the body, to it, or before it, is a religious exter­nall worship at the least; which being not commanded by divine authority, is no lesse than superstition or ido­latry. The last reason, as it make more for bowing to crucifixes, to Golgatha, to the high Priests hal, thā to Cō ­muniō tables or Altars, so it is a meer ridiculous absurdity For the Communion table is not a signe of the Mat: 26. v. 59. to 64. high Priests pallace, nor yet ofMat 27. 33. Mar. [...]5, 22. Golgatha, nor of the Mat. 27. 42. Heb. 12, 2. Crosse, therefore it's no signe of the place where our Saviour was most dishonoured, despised, and cruci­fied: If it be any signe at all, it is onely a signe of a spiri­tuall repasting place, or of an heavenly banquet, where in Christ doth spirituallyMat. 26. 27. 28. distribute his body & blood, with all the benefits of his passion, to al who worthily receive them. But that it should be a signe of the place where our Saviour suffered, is as new Divinity unto me, as is the very bowing to Communion-tables, which hath neither Scripture, Law, nor Canon for to warrant it.

19 Page 21, 22, 23; He writes thus: That all the Fathers and Ancients on this place, but Origen, doe literally under­stand this text of Phil. 2. 9, 10, and approve of this actuall bowing at the name of Iesus, which we now dispute of; That this bowing was the custome of St. Hieroms time: & that it was a most ancient custome, even in the beginning of the Church: for proofe of which he hath vouched Bp. An­drewes, Bp. Whitguist, Zanchius, the Councels of Nice and Ephesus, Athanasius, Cyrill and Hierom. But than Gregory the 10 who lived in the yeare of our Lord 1273, was one of the first Fathers of it, this (writes he) is fabu­lous, and a part of the Puritans Legend.

This passage I dare boldly averre, is as fabulous as a­ny in the golden Legend, there being not one Father, one ancient Expositor this day extant, that did ever inter­pret this text, of any corporall genuflection or bowing at the recitall of the name of Iesus, in time of divine ser­vice onely, (to which Iewes, Turkes, and Arrians sel­dome [Page 39] come,Which an­sweres his Al­legation, p. 78. and so it's needlesse in respect of them) or at other seasons. I have already in my Appendix Not falsi­fied and cor­rupted, as hee writes, p. 50, 60 & 68. truly vouched some 80, or more severall ancient and moderne Authours, who reciting, and descanting on this Text, have found out no such Duty, or Ceremony, of bowing at the naming of Iesus in time of divine service, as this up­start Chymicke hath extracted (I should say wrested) from it, even by head and shoulders, against the very words and meaning, as I have there largely proved. To these I shall accumulate some other ancient and modern Writers, who give no other interpretation of the name above every name, and of the bowing of every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things vnder the earth, in the name of Iesus, in this text of the Philippians, than that I have mentioned in my Appendix: Which Wri­ters because they are many, I shall therefore onely quote their names and bookes, (which the learned Reader may peruse at leisure) not their words: Their names and workes in briefe are these: Sancti Hippoliti Oratio De Consum. Mundi, & de Antichristo, Bibl: Patrum Colo­niae Agrip: 1618. Tom: 3. p. 17. B. Dionuysij Alexandrini Epistolacontra Paulū Samo satensem, Ibid, hath re­ference to the same Tome of Bibl Patrum, quoted before it. ibid: p: 75. B. C, D Zeno Veronensis Sermo in Psa: 126, ibid: p: 97, G, S. Antonij Abbatis Epist: 6. Bibl: Patrum Tom: 4, p: 30; B. Phaebadi Episc: contra Arrianos lib: ibid: p: 230; G. Idacij. advers: Varimadum lib: ibid: p: 622; A; Caesarij Dialogus 1; ibid: p: 650. A. S. Marci Eremita Praecepta salutaria, ibid: p: 959; B, C, D. Editione Duaci, 1577. Prosper Aquit: De Praedictionibus Dei pars 1; c: 25; pars 2; c: 24. Expositio in Psal: 102; fol: 236; A. in Psal: 109, fol: 254; A. 255; B; in Psal: 137; f. 296. Pau­linus Epist; 9; ad Severum. Bibl: Patr: Tom: pars 1. p: 163 G. Ad Aprum: Epist: 1, p: 187; B, & Ad Augustinum E­pist: 3, p: 216, C. where he applies this text.Quibus insi­tum Christi nomen, quod est supra omne nomen, hanc deberi venera­tionem facit, ut non possit a credente con­temni. to the name of Christ, not of Iesus. S. Procli Sermo in Transfig. Chri­sti, ibid: p 535; D, E: 536; C. Eusebij Gallicani Homil: 1; De Nativ. Domini, Ibid: p: 544; C; D. Eucherius Lugdu­nensis Epist: Paraenetica ad Valerium; ibid: p: 777: D. & [Page 40] Commentarij in Genefim l: 3. ibid. p: 832. A. p: 836. G. Gre­gentius Archiepisc. Tephrensis, Disputatio cum Herba­no Iudaeo, ibid p: Sede a dex­trismeis, donec mundi finis & consummatio venerit, & mit­tam te iudicem vivorum & mortuorum; & tunc flectet omne genu su­per-coelestium terrestrium, & inferorum, po­tentiaetuae, tui­ (que) inimici pro [...] sternentur ve­lut calcandum scabellum pe­dum tuorum, & reddes uni­cui (que) secun­dum opera sua. Haec veritassic interpretatur & exponit, si­modo velis as­sentiri & ap­probare. Ibid. 924. C. a pregnant place for my Expo­sition. Claudius Mamerchus Destatu Animae, lib: 1. ibid. p. 951. F; G. Cassianus De Incarnatione Vnigeniti, lib: 4 Bibl Patr: Tom. 5, pars 2; p. 71. F, G. Isiodori Pelusiotae E­pist: l: 1. Ep. 139. ibid. p. 491; D; E. Arnobij & Serapionis Conflictus, Bibl. Pat. Tom: 5, pars 3, p: 218, C. Arnobij Comment: in Psal: 7, Ibid: p: 234, C. in Psal: 64, p: 262, A. in Psal: 88, p: 277, B. in Psal: 137, p: 308, E, F. Ruricij E­pist: l: 2. Epist: 10, Ibid: p: 544, 545. Theodulus Caelesyrien­sis Comment: in Epist: ad Romanos, c: 14. p: 590, B, C, D. Vigily Episc: Tridentini, Disputatio de Christo, D, N, &c. Ibid: p: 693, D, E. 703, A. & adversus Eutichen l: 5, Apud Georgij Cassandri Opera, Parisijs 1616, p: 561. Ferrandus Diaconus ad Reginum Paraeneticus: Quarta innocentiae Regula, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 6, pars 1, p: 349, F, G. Iusti Orgelitani Episc: in Cantica Cantic: Explicatio, Ibid: p: 512, F: Isychius in Levit: l: 7, c: 24. Bibl: Patrum Tom: 7, p: 108, B. Etherij & Beati lib: 1, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 8, p: 342, C, D, E. 346, E, F. Amalarius Fortunatus, De Ec­clesiasticis Officijs lib:1, c: 11. Bibl. Patrum Tom: 9, pars 1, p:Nomen Domini in lo [...]co isto (scilicet Phil: 2, 9, 10) proredebemus intelligere: ta­ [...]en non ab­horret a vero, si­dixerimus, in nomine Do [...]i­ni, posseintel­ [...] in praecep­ [...] [...]308, F, G. Agobardi Episc: Lugdun: ad Ludo­vicum Imperator [...], Ibid: p: 556, G, H. De Picturis et I­maginibus lib: Ibid: p: 598, C, D. & Sermo De Trinitate, p: 610, G, H. 611, A, B. Angelomi Stromata in lib: 1, Re­gum, cap: 2, Ibid; p: 708, C, D: 700, F, G. In lib: Regum 2, cap [...] 2, p: 730, C: cap: 12, p: 740, E. In lib: Regum 3: c: 8, p: 771 D. Iesse Ambianensis Episc: Epist: Bib: Patrum Tom: 9, pars 2, p: 251, D. Ambrosius Ansbertus in Apocalyps: l: 3, Ibid: p: 378, E, F. HRabanus Maurus, Comment: in Pauli Epistolas lib: 19, c: 2. Operum Coloniae Agrip: 1626, Tom: 5, p: 460, D, E. & l: 6, p: 449, E. Paschatius Ratbertus in Matthaei Evang: l: 10, Ibid: p: 1156, B, C. Lib: 11, p: 1177, A, B. lib: 12, p: 1234, G, H. Expositio in Psal: 44, p: 1246, G. 1249, G. Remigij Altisiodorensis Episcopi in Psal: 15, Enarrat, Ibid: p, 654, B: in Psal: 148, p: 869, B. Ioannis [Page 41] Cyparissioti Decad; 4, c: 10, De Informatione Divini No­minis, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 11, p: 499, B. Simeonis Thessal: Archiepij copide Divino Templo, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 12, pars 1,Dum dicit fancta fanctis; populus vicis­sim clamat; V­nussanctus, u­nus lesus Chri­stus in gloria Dei Patris; Quod a Pau­lo scriptum re­sonabit in ex­tremo die, quando Iesu flectetur omne genu, & omnis lingua confite­bitur. &c.p: 880, C; Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, in V­num ex 4 or. lib: ibid: p: 185, F; Petrus Cluniacensis contra Iudaeos, Tract: cap: 1, Bib: Patrum Tom: 12, pars 2, p: 156, D, cap: 3, p: 171, F, G; cap: 4, p: 182, F; Contra Petrobusia­nos ibid: p: 225, C, D; De Transfig: Domini Sermo, ibid: p: 2 [...]4, D; Petrus Blesensis Bathoniensis Archidiaconus, Sermo 31, ibid: p: 886, D; Sermo 46, p: 907, H. De Trans­fig: Domini, p 915, B; Ioannis Salisburiensis, in Phil: 2, 9, 10; MS; in Bibliotheca Bodleiana: Lucas Tudensis ad­versus. Albigensium Errores, l: 2, cap: 10; Bibl: Patrum Tom: 13, p: 261, F; c: 16, p: 267, 268; Guilbertus De Tor­naco De Officio Episcopi, et Ecclesiae Ceremonijs lib: cap: 13; ibid: p: 398. D. Nicolai Cabasilae, De vitain Christo lib: 6, Bib: Patrum Tom: 14, p: 127, A; Papa Innocentius 3. Sermo 1, in Dominica. 2, post Pascha;Coloniae A­grip. 1606.Operum, Tom: 1, p: 43, In Circumcisione Domini Sermo 1, Pag: 95, In fe­sto omnium Sanctorum Sermo 1, p: 156, Mysteriorum Missae lib: 2, c: 44, p [...] 329, & De contemptu mundi; l. 2, c: 15, p 449, ThomasOpera. Ve­netiis 1571.Waldensis Tom: 3, Tit: 5, De Baptismi Sacr: cap: 54, fol: 103, num: 6, Petr: Lombard. Sententia­rum, l: 3, Distinctio 18. See Gorrichen, and the other Schoolemen Ibidem: to which I shall addeFrancosurti 1548, fol, 54, to 58. Ioannis Bren­tius, Zuinglius, Selneccerus, & Scholia in E­pist, ad Phil. c. 2 v 9, 10. Herbor­nae 1616, p. 1160, 1162. Piscator in Phil. 2, 9, 10 Iacobus Naclantus Enarratio in Epist ad Romanos, cap. 14 Venetijs 1557 fol. 159; Pareus Comment: inc. 14, ad Romanos, v. 11, Col. 1475, 1476, 1477; Ioannis Luka­wits, Waldensis, Conjessio Taboritarum, in Balthazaris LydijEditio 2, Roterodami, 1622.Waldensia pars 1, p. 161, 162, 163; Polanus Syn­tagma Theologiae, Genevae 1616 l. 2, c. 5, p. 211; Zacha­riae Vrsini Catechet, Explic. 1617, pars 2, Qu. 50, fol. 305 Henricus Bullingerus Assert [...]o Orthodoxa utriusque na­turae Christi, Tiguri 1534, fol, 35, 36; Iosias Simlerus, De Filio Dei, lib 2, Tiguri 1568, fol. 79, & 134; Dr. Field Of the Church, Booke 5, chapter 20; Sixti Senensis Bib­liothecae [Page 42] sanctae, lib. 5, Annotatio 150. These 60 ancient Fathers, and moderne Authours, (to whom I could have added sundry others, did not the desire of brevity and my Tearme-occasions stint me,) together with those 80, already recited in my Appendix, in their quotations and expositions of Phil: 3 [...] 9, 10. That In nomine, not ad nome [...] thus all the re­cited Authours reade it. in the name of Ie­sus, That is, in the soveraigne Authority of Iesus: (Which phrase, in the name of Iesus, is answerable to the usuall clause in our ordinary Proclamations, Com­missions, Warrants: These are to wil, require, charge, command you in, not at, his Majesties name; or in, not at, the Kings name; a speech most frequent in all Offi­cers mouths of all sorts: that is, in the vertue of his Maje­sties royal authority, to do this or thus) every knee should bow, &c. have made no such liter all exposition of this text, neither have they hence collected any such duty of bowing at the name of Iesus in time of Divine service, as Mr. Wid­dowes hath squeized from it: most of them interpreting the name above every name, intended in this text; to be, ei­ther theThis is the generall Inter­pretation of all the Fathers and Ancients, and so our Church in Te Deum lauda­mus, doth seeme to in­terpret it. name God, Iehovah, Lord, Sonne of God, Christ; &c. or at leastwiseThis is the received Expo­sition of all moderne Ex­positours. the Majestie, Glorie, Ho­nour, Authourity, Power, Soveraignty, Fame, and Mo­narchy of Christ, as himselfe confesseth, page 66, 67. All of them concluding, the bowing of every knee, &c. in this text, to be, the subjection of all things unto Christ, as to their soveraigne Lord, their King and Iudge; and that especi­ally at the day of judgement, (when this ScriptureFor every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth and things un­der the earth, shall not bow to Christ till then, neither shall every tongue til then confesse, that Iesus Christ is Lord. This Scripture ther­fore being on­ly then fulfil­led, cannot without falsi­fication and perverting be applied to any other time but that alone. shall be onely actually and fully verified;) or the adoration of Christ in prayer, as God equall with his Father: Not one of them interpreting it, of any bowing, or cringing at the naming of Iesus; a Ceremony, a duty of this text, not heard of in the primitive Church, not knowne to the Fathers, or any ancient Expositors of this text; in whom I dare confidently affirme, and let any, nay all the bow­ers at the name of Iesus disprove me if they can, there is no mention of this duty, this ceremony: which our Church cannot approve of without degenerating from [Page 43] all antiquity, from all reformed Churches, which I dare presume she will not doe. IndeedIn his Ser­mon at White­Hall, 1614. in his late workes p. 475, 476, 477. Bp. Andrewes, and Mr. Consutati­on p: 21, 22, 23 77, 78. Widdowes have quoted Fathers for it, but how impertinently,Here p. 7, 8, 31, 32. I have already demonstrated: and if the Reader will but examine them, he shall finde them either altogether extravagant, or point-blanke against them. All the Antiquity that seemes to give any colour to this bowing, is the fabulous story of Ignatius the Martyr, in whose heart (as Lincolnien­sis super Evan­gelia parte 4, c. 7. Alexander Fabritius, De­structorium vi­tiorum pars 4, c 38, G; Vin­centius in spe­culo l 10, c. 57; Magarinus De la Bigne; De [...]. Ignatio, &c. Bib. Patr. Tom 1, p. 76; Mola­nus De Pictu­ris c: 60; Caro­lus Stengelius, De S. Nomine Iesu c. 27; Sal­meron Operū, Tom. 3. Tract. 37. some Popish Authors have recorded,) the name of Iesus, or rather, Iesus est amor meus, was found written in golden Characters. But these golden Letters, are but a part of the golden Legend; for neither Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozemon, Nice­phorus; nor any other ancient Ecclesiasticall writers, who make mention of Ignatius his Martyrdome, have recorded any such thing: and besides Eusebius writes, Lincolnien­sis super Evan­gelia parte 4, c. 7. Alexander Fabritius, De­structorium vi­tiorum pars 4, c 38, G; Vin­centius in spe­culo l 10, c. 57; Magarinus De la Bigne; De [...]. Ignatio, &c. Bib. Patr. Tom 1, p. 76; Mola­nus De Pictu­ris c: 60; Caro­lus Stengelius, De S. Nomine Iesu c. 27; Sal­meron Operū, Tom. 3. Tract. 37. That he was torn in peeces of the Lyons, to whom he was cast. Neither doe the Popish relaters of it agree in one: some recording, that theEuseb. Eccl. Hist l. 3, c. 32. See Ca­rolus Stengeli­us c 27, accor­dingly. Magarinus & Molanus qua [...]. name Iesus onely was writ­ten in his heart: others, that Vincentius Stengelius, & Salmeron. Iesus Christus, was written throughout his heart: ⁱ others, that Iesus est amor meus, was there inscribed. But admit this Legend (which some Protestants now vouch with too much credulity) were true; yet the relaters of it (and of some others of this nature, viz. ^k B. Virginis Clarae de Monte faler­nis, and of a noble Soldier) record not, that Ignatius did use to bow at the name of Iesus, but that he had it alwayes in his mouth, whence it was afterwards thus ingraven in golden Letters in his heart, not in his knees, in which it had beene undoubtedly written, had he used to bow and cringe unto it. This fable therefore of Ignatius his heart, (not knees) makes nothing for this new-coyn'd duty, this di [...]orderly ceremony of bowing the knee at every naming of Iesus, (which must needes disturbe men in their devotions, since this name Iesus, is [Page 44] oft times mentioned Mark 11, 33 cap. 10, 47, 52. 1 Thess. [...], 1, c. 4, 14 2 Thes. 1, 12, 1 Tim. 1, 4, 14 2 Tim. 2, 1. 1 Pet, 1, 3; 2 Pet. 1, 1; Iude 1; Revel 1, 9, Matth. 27, 11, 1 Cor: 5, 4; c: 12, 3; 2, Cor. 4, 5, 10, 11, 14. Iesus, is twice recited in one verse; & Iohn 19, 38, thrice in one verse; 1 Cor: [...], 1, to 11, 9 times in 10 verses, twice in one verse. Ephes 1, 1, 2, 3 foure times in three verses; Col. 1. [...], [...], 3, 4 [...] its foure times mentioned in 4 verses: & to bow downe to the ground almost, sooftē, in a reverent and serious manner, must needs interrupt a man much in his hearing, reading, and attention to the text and sence. twice, and sometime thrice to­gether in one verse;) for which there is no ground, no warrant in the Fathers, in Antiquity, as this fabulous scribler hath recorded; who should have forborne to have^m taxed me, for falsifying, for misvouching those 80 Fathers, and Authours, quoted in my Appendix; since there is not one of them, (let the Committ [...]es imployed to examine them, be the umpires) but concludes point­blanke against him in the Interpretation of the name, or bowing in this text; of which not one of them, (no not Pag 66. 67. 20. Zanchi [...]s, nor Dr. Boyes, as he suggestes, who both interpret it as I have done,) did ever make, this bowing at the name of Iesus, a duty; as this brainsicke nonsence Noveller doth Which bowing (as a ceremony onely, not a duty,) was never publikely enjoyned unto any, till Pope Gregory the 10. his time, for ought that can be proved; and therefore to stile him one of the first Fa­thers of it, is no Puritans Legend, as he stiles it; but an ap­parant truth; which all the Anti-puritan bowers at the name of Iesus put together, cannot disprove. Should I now here at large inform you, of his absurd dis­pute, Page 13, to 25. Whether bowing at the name of Iesus be some thing? occasioned by the two first lines of my Appendix; viz. [The bowing of the head or knee at the name of Iesus, if it be any thing, &c.] which words if any thing as they neither affirme, nor yet suppose, the bowing at the name of Iesus to be a meere nothing, both in genere entis, & mo­ris, as heePage 9, 10, 13, 14. vainly cavills: since my whole Appendix grants it, proves it, to be a superstitious, Popish [...] ­lesse Ceremonie; and so acknowledgeth it to [...] some­thing, in genere entis, at the least; a thing which no man ever questioned. So (they being a most usuall forme of Argument drawne from aSee Aditus ad Logicam, p. 119, 120. Disjunction, which every [Page 45] Fresh-man knowes,) imply no more but this; That bow­ing at the name of Iesus, is nothing; (to wit, in causa reli­gionis, in point of Religion or divine worship onely, not in genere entis;) because it is neither a Ceremony, nor a duty of the Text, as I have there sufficiently proved. Which phrase of speech, to call something in genere entis, nothing; that is, in genere moris, in point of religion, or to some speciall purposes, to which it is unavailable, im­pertinent, or as much as nothing, is most frequent in the Scripture: as St. Paules stiling of an Idol, 1 cor. 8. 4 c: 10, 19 no­thing in the world that is, inSee 1 Cor: 8, 5, 6; Isay 44. 9, c: 4 [...], 20, c. 46 7 c. 11, 23, 24, 29. regard of any Deity it hath in it, or in respect of any helpe or good it can yeeld to those who worship it: and his calling of1 Cor. 7, 19 Circumcision, and uncircumcision nothing; that is,See Cal. 5, 6. in p [...]int of Iustifi­cation, where they are as nothing: withSee Mat 23 16, 18. Acts 21 24. 1 Cor: 3, 7. c. 8, 2. c: 10, 19. Cal. 2, 7. c 6, 3 Phil 3, 7, 8. & 1 Tim 6, 4, ac­cordingly. sundry other instances, plentifully testifie, to2 [...]ct. 2, 16. rebuke the madnesse of this erronious Prophet, who is so igno­rant of hisSee his pag 5, l 35. owne Modalities, as thus to carpe at nothing. Or shou [...]d I here shew you, how your Sonne hath contradicted himselfe in this very controversie; In making this bowing,See p. 15, 16 17, 18, &c. a duty of the Text and yet a ce­remony too A duty and a ceremonyPage 19, 75 76, 88. onely in time of di­vine service, and yet a duty,Page 34. which Angels and Saints [...] heaven, and Divels and Reprobates in hell performe. A [...]ty incident onely to the name of Iesus, and yet enjoy­ned by Cyrill, and the Councell of Ephesus, to the name of Emmanuel, Page 21. as he write. In averring,Page 25, 26, &c. That Iesus is the name above every name, &c. & that the litterall bow­ing of the knee at the name of Iesus is the bowing intended in Phil: 2, 9 10. reciting the Authors quoted by me in my Appendix, as making for it, when as they allFor they write that God &c, is the name not Iesus, p [...]6, 67. and that this bowing is adortion, and sub [...]ection &c p 60, 61, to 67 not any corporall ge­nuflectio [...] at the naming of Iesus. conclude against it, by his owne confession, if you observe them well: with sundry other contradictions which I [...]mit. Or should I here discover his many absurd impertinent misquotations; his mis-englishing of those Latine Au­thours which he voucheth: and his grosse perverting of Authours, and Scriptures: page 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, [Page 46] 23, 28, 32, 37, 41, 42, & 59, to 68, in which there is scarce a pertinent true quotation, or right englishing of any Latine Authour, if you examine them well. Or should I now informe you, how hee hath misquoted Qu. Eliz. obsolete Injunctions, Injunct. 52. and the A Canon only of directi­on, by way of advise, not of obligation, by way of com­mand, there be­ing no penalty expressed in it. 18. Canon: In which there is no such clause: That all present at Divine service should bow at the name of Iesus: the words of the Canon being, That when in time of Di­vine service the Lord Iesus [which hath reference onely to the person of Iesus, represented to us under any of his names] not the name of Iesus, should be mentioned, That is, such reverence as the Scripture com­mands, for none else is due to Christ: whereas this of bowing at the name of Iesus, is not commā ­ded in scrip­ture, for ought that can ap­peare, therfore not due. due and lowly reverence (not bowing of the head or knee, much lesse the putting off of the hat, which this Yet most men use the contrary. yea many at their first entrance into the Church intime of Divine ser­vice, fal to their first private devoti­ons, which this Canon, & the 2. part of the Homily of the right use of the Church, p. 8, expresly pro­hibit; and yet they are not censured, but commen­ded for it. Canon forbids men to put on in time of Divine ser­vice) shall be done by all persons present, &c. Or should I here relate unto you, that all his strong Armour, all his Arguments, page 87, 88, 89, wherein he trusts, are but a meere petitio principij; wherein he beggs of me the que­stion, as he hathThis divers have informed me upon their knowledge. runne about the Vniversity like a Fri­er mendicant, to begge his Arguments, which are all built upon this sandy false foundation; That bowing at the naming of Iesus is a duty of the text: an honour which God hath given to Iesus, and he hath merited from us, and there­fore we must yeeld it to him, to testifie our owne humility, and to declare his soveraignty, that he is Lord and Iesus: the thing which he should prove, and I, (yea all the 80 Authours which I have quoted in my Appendix, with these sixty others here recited) denie; I should but tire my owne and your patience, and waste both time and paper to no purpose.

VVherefore (Deare Mother) recommending to your gravest consideration, and then to your correction, the severall grosse notorious Oversights of this brave Cham­pion-Sonne of yours, who like some great Goliah, to shew his valour, (or his folly rather) hath sentPage 90, l. 29, 30, 31. a prin­ted Challenge to me, (a little David in respect of him) to dispute even face to face with him in the Schooles, &c. [Page 47] perchance because he thinks himself a better Disputant, than he is here a Writer) that so I may no longer trouble the Church; I hope, for your owne honour and reputa­tion, which now lie at stake in this your unworthy Sons absurd illiterate Confutation, you will upon the serious perusall of this my Survey, proceed to bind this his erro­nious (and I trust unlicensed) Pamphlet, (which is like to bring aProv 10, 1. A foolish son is a heavinesse to his Mother. scandall on his Mother) to the good behavi­our, and his untutered, scurrilous,Quid stulti proprium? non posse & velle nocere. Auso­nii sapientes p. 91. foolish, scribling Goose-quill, to everlasting peace: by reducing his per­son, his Syllogismes to Bocardo, the onely Moode, the fittest Schoole for such a Challenger, such a Writer to dis­pute in, who would not conclude his notorious knowne Errours, in Celarent, upon my timely private Letter and advice. Thus wholly referring his Confutation, Er­rours, Person, to your motherly lash and Censure, (as being loath to incroach upon your Liberties, or to trou­ble my selfe with such an Adversary, who hath taken muchNihil est enim inama­bilius quam diligens stulti­tia, Seneca Cont. l. 7. Con [...] tr. 5, p. 1136. unamiable paines toProv. 13. 16 spread h [...]s too well­knowne folly, and marre his laud-unworthy cause, which was bad and weake enough before,) I here humbly close up all, and ever rest,