Jesu-vvorship confuted, or, Certain arguments against bowing at the name Jesus proving it to be idolatrous and superstitious and so utterly unlawful : with objections to the contrary fully answered / by H.B.

Jesu-vvorship confuted, or, Certain arguments against bowing at the name Jesus proving it to be idolatrous and superstitious and so utterly unlawful : with objections to the contrary fully answered / by H.B.

Table of contents

Title page

Argument 1.

Argument 2.

Argument 3.

Argument 4.

Objections answered.

[Page]ARGUMENTS AGAINST JESU-WORSHIP, OR, Bowing at the Name JESUS.

§

§

[Page]

[Page] Jesu-VVorship CONFUTED, OR, CERTAIN ARGUMENTS Against bowing at the Name JESUS. Proving it to be Idolatrous and Superstitious, and so utterly unlawfull. WITH Objections to the contrary fully Answered. By H. B.

ISAIAH 2. 9.

The mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself, therefore pardon them not.

LONDON: Printed for H. C. in Popes-head-Alley, in the Year 1660.

Argument 1.

ALL Idolatry is utterly to be abhorred. Propositi: Assumption. Conclusion.

But, Adoration or Bowing at the name IESUS is Idolatry.

Therefore such adoration is altogether to be abhorred.

First, That all idolatry is to be abhorred the Apostle sheweth, 1 Cor. 10. 14. And all men confesse it.

Secondly, That adotation at the name, or naming the name JESUS is idolatry, is thus proved: That name that is adored before, or above the name JEHOVAH, is made an Idol, and so the adoration of it is idolatry; But, adoration at the name JESUS, is to adote that name above the name JEHOVAH. Therefore the name JESUS, so adored, is an idol, and it's adoration is idolatry.

The reason of this act is taken from the practice of the IESU-Worshippers, who never use any adoration or signe of reverence when JEHOVAH is named, but only when JESUS is named they give both outward and inward adoration to the name JESUS, but not to the name JEHOVAH: So that they adore the name JeSUS above the name JEHOVAH.

[Page] If they say their adoration of the name JESUS is not terminated, not bounded in the word or syllables JESUS, but passet [...] to the person of JESUS.

I answer, It is but a frivolous, absurd and rediculous shift which Dr. Fulk on Phil. 2. 10. against the Rhemists, confuteth in the Jesuits, saying; That this their evasion is too short a Cloak to cover their Idolatry. As also in the case of Image-worship, the Papists use the very same shift; namely, that their worship rests not in the Image, but passes through it to the thing represented by it. Agustinie in Ps. 113. Serm. 2. Origen contra celsum: lib: 7. Lactàn: fixtus. Seneca li. 1. Biblioth. 247. & others. And the ancient idolatrous Gentiles could plead the same for their worshipping of Images, which the ancient Fathers shewed the vanity of. And again, It is as clear that this IESU-Worship is terminated in the very name JESUS, by the common and singular Worshippers of it, as Image-worship is by ordinary Papists (at least) terminated in the very Image, as Augustine ibidem. Quis (saith he) adorat, velorat, Who adoreth or prayeth, looking upon an Image, & is not so affected that he thinks he is not heard of it which he prayeth to; ducit enim saith he, &c. for the similitude of a form, and the apt frame of the members in a Picture or Image, doth draw & carry along with it the weak hearts of mortal men by a kind of base affection; and so this use of bowing at the name JESUS intimates unto the peoples minds an opinion of some excellency in this name above JEHOVAH.

And if they do by this name JESUS worship the person JESUS, yet this teacheth the people a most grosse and impious error, in preferring JESUS before God the Father. And Chrysostom reciting those words of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 8. 2. To us there is but one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, think not (saith he) that one of these names is greater then another in their signification, or more excellent; and to prefer one before another, argues a contentious disposition, to introduce into the orthodox doctrine, mens own inventions; yea, its plain; that they prefer the name JESUS before the person of Christ, seeing when JESUS is named they worship with Cap and Knee, but none at all when Christ is named; so as they shew hereby, that this their wor [...]hip appropriated unto, and terminated in the very name and syllables of JESUS, as Bishop Andrews blusheth not to affirm, in his Court Sermon on Phil: 2. 10.

Argument 2.

[Page]

A Second Argument proving JESU-worship, or bowing and capping at the name JESUS when it is mentioned or sounded in the ear, to be idolatry, is, If the adoration of the name JESUS when it is painted on a Wall be idolatry, then the adoration of the name when it is heard or pronounced with the mouth, is also idolatry, but the first is true, therefore also the second, namely that the worshipping of the name JESUS when it is heard pronounced with the mouth is idolatry.

That the first is true, to wit, that the worshipping of the name JESUS painted on a Wall is idolatry, no good and sound Protestant will deny, for, there is this same reason thereof, as of all other Image-worship, names being a kind of the things they represent or intend.

That the second is as true as the first, I prove thus, Because it skils not by which of the sences idolatry is committed, for it may be indifferently and alike committed by all the sences. For example, the Scripture shews idolatry to be committed, somtimes by the sence of tasting, as eating and drinking, 1 Cor. 10. 17. Neither be ye Idolaters as were some of them, as it is written, the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Sometimes by the sence of touching, as kissing of Baals mouth, 1 Kings 19. 18. Sometimes by the sence of smelling, as burning of Incense to Idols was idolatry committed, Jer. 11. 12. And as in Julians time offering of incense, and sweet perfumes. Frequently also by the sence of seeing is idolatry committed. And lastly idolatry is made, (and now adayes no lesse frequently committed by pressing this JESU-worship) by the sence of hearing, as when the Papists at the very sound of the Bell that goes tinkling before their Breaden-god, or Hoast carried to the sick, or in procession wheresoever they be, or whatsoever they are doing; though they see nothing, yet they must slap down on their Marrow-bones. Thus by the sence of Hearing their God in the Hoast being presented or conveyed to their minds, they commit idolatry as if it were presented to their eye: And therefore the provincial Synod of Leno in France, resolved (in the behalf of their Image-worship) that there was the same reason of adoration, when the Image of Christ is represented to the eye, as when the name JESUS is sounded [Page] in the ear, for that which the one insinuates into the mind by the ear, the other insinuates the same by the eye. If therefore it be idolatry to worship the name JESUS written on a Wall, then it is no lesse idolatry to give adoration when it is uttered with the mouth.

Argument 3.

THat which is not the name above every name, is not to be adored or reverenced above of before other names. But the name JESUS is not the name above every name; therefore it is not to be reverenced or adored before, or above all other names.

The Major is cleer, for that which is honoured above others hath some excellency above others; either really in it selfe, or else in the opinion of honour. And that the name JESUS is the name above other names, what Divine is so doltish as to imagine it, so bold as to avow it? Even the JESU-worshippers themselves have been much beaten off from their false glosse of a late devising, and by one of their greatest Patrones hereof, falsely fathered upon all the Fathers, whereas not one of them did ever so interpret that place, Phil. 2. 10. For as they dare not affirm it, so its clear that the Text is clean otherwise interpreted by two other places; as Isa. 45. 23. & Rom. 14. 10. As they are conferred in the Margents of our Bibles, which (at least) are far more ancient and authentick, then any authority which can produce the contrary, whatsoever, as I suppose and believe.

Argument 4.

A Fourth Argument may be framed thus; All will-worship, devised, prescribed and imposed by the will, commandements and doctrines of men, whatsoever pretence and specious shew it hath of wisdom or piety, is condemned by the Apostle, and so is damnable for Christians to conform and yeeld unto it. But such is the adoration or worshipping of the name JESUS: I say it is a meer will worship of mans devising, prescribing, and imposing. For proof, Pope Gregory a superstitious Pope (as all of them write) and very zealous in setting up new guids of worship, was the first that under a Canon for this Jesu-worship to be used, especially in the Masse, and in the reading of the Gospel. And another Pope John 21. granted indulgence and pardon of sins to all such worshippers of the name JESUS; such a high esteem have men of these things which themselves have devised, as part of [Page] Gods worship, but indeed will-worship, (as the Crow thinks her own birds fairest) that they therefore prefer them before Gods Ordinances and Commandements, and will favour and encourage such as conform to them and more severely punish those that out of tendernesse and truth of conscience refuse so to doe. Yea, the Papists have a Holy-day dedicated to the name of Jesu, and Jesu-worshippers have even thrust it into our Kalenders, but in black letters, mourning that it is not in scarlet, as their hope is it wil shortly be, if it can find worshippers enough! And our Jesu-worshippers confesse that they are bound in conscience to bow at the name JESUS, because the By the Church is meant the Bishops. Church commands it, that is, because men do command it; Ergo, by their own confession being devised by man, and having no ground in Scripture, it is a will-worship, and so damnable, and surely they condemned in their own consciences.

But where I pray doth the Church command this Jesu-worshipping? in the Canons say they, I deny it, for the Canon sayes, when the Lord Jesus is mentioned due reverence shall be given; now the Lord Jesus is not the name Jesus, nor the name Jesus, the Lord Jesus, and to confound the name Jesus with the Lord Jesus deserves a hissing, but they are at a Non-plus-ultra; but if they will force the letter of the Canon to serve their corrupt sence, they are together to be exploded, seeing they fight against a canonical Scripture, the only Canon and right rule of the worship of God.

Objections answered.

Object. 1. Some say, this adoration is a thing indifferent, therefore it may be used or not used.

Answer. If it be a thing indifferent, why is it then so rigidly imposed, as a thing of absolute necessity to be observed? This destroyes the nature of a thing indifferent, which the Scripture condemneth, this being a will-worship of humane invention.

Object: 2. But it is a pious Ceremony and conducing much to the honour of God.

Answer. Seem it never so pious and specious to mans carnall fancie, yet being idolatrous (as hath been proved) it is but pious idolatry, or idolatrous piety; and God abhorreth that piety and pretended honour as vain, which is taught by the precepts of men, Matth: 15. 9.

[Page] Object: 3. But bowing at the name of Jesus is a slighter, a lesser matter then that a man should suffer himself to be deprived of the use of his Ministry for refusal of it.

Answer. A mans Ministry is precious indeed, and the calling high and honourable, and to be preferred before all the world; but it is not so precious as to be valued above a good conscience and the Kingdom of Heaven, but to do the least evil wilfully, for the greatest good, makes damnation just: Nor is the least idolatry or superstitious act to be counted light, for having but an appearance of idolatry, and being of no good report, it ought to be avoided, for the least kind or degree of idolatry being once committed and given way unto, it is an inducement to that which is most grosse, and doth naturally enfeeble a mans spirit, making it lesse able to resist and repulse greater abominations; and commonly God gives over such to grosser sins of impietyes, who make not conscience of the least, and such as seem but light. It is the saying of a Divine, Qui modicas spernit, paulatim decidit, He that makes light account of small sins falls by little and little, & sins that seem less are so much the more perilous because they are the more easily committed, and securely retained, and lesse carefully repented. As for this Jesu-worship, why should any Minister think it a small matter, when the Imposers themselves set such a penalty upon it, as the losse of a mans Ministry for not conforming to it?

Object: 4. But it is imposed onely for unity and peace sake.

Answer. It is no good peace that breaks the peace of a good conscience, and a mans peace with God: That is no good unity, which devides a man from the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

Object: 5. But if one Ceremony be yeelded to, we shall then quickly enjoy our Ministry, and the Gospel without any more impositions.

Answer. And how know you that? but suppose it were so, were not your peace bought at too dear a rate? But, why should any deceive himselfe of so vain a hope, when he sees the contrary before his eyes? who sees not that those are but the beginnings, [Page] and inducements to greater matters, and he that is catcht in the snare is easily brought to yeeld to more hard conditions?

Object: 6. But to yeeld to this world, not be offensive to the people, who generally can digest it well enough, and therefore lesse danger in it.

Answer. Though it would not offend the ignorant sort, which are the greatest number, yet it would scandalize and wound the weake brother, grieving his soul to see thee fall, and giving examples to others to follow thee in a way that is not warrantable, but sinfull, For whatsoever is not of faith (as this is not) is sin.

FINIS.

[Page]

Information about this book

Title statement

Jesu-vvorship confuted, or, Certain arguments against bowing at the name Jesus proving it to be idolatrous and superstitious and so utterly unlawful : with objections to the contrary fully answered / by H.B.

Burton, Henry, 1578-1648.

Edition statement

1660

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2004-11 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A30643

ID [STC]

Wing B6166

ID [STC]

ESTC R4361

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

13679396

ID [OCLC]

ocm 13679396

ID [VID]

101282

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A30643)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 101282)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 839:22)

Source

— Jesu-vvorship confuted, or, Certain arguments against bowing at the name Jesus proving it to be idolatrous and superstitious and so utterly unlawful : with objections to the contrary fully answered / by H.B., Burton, Henry, 1578-1648..

Extent

8 p.

Printed for H.G. ...,. London :: 1660.. (Written by Henry Burton. Cf. Wing.) (Reproduction of original in Huntington Library.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.