ARGUMENT. I.

ALL worship of GOD that is taught by the commandements of men, and not prescribed by GOD himselfe is will-worship, and simply unlawfull.

But such is this bowing at the Name of Iesus.

Ergo will-worship and simply unlawfull.

The Major Proposition is from Heaven, and therfore greater then to be denyed, Esa. 29.13. Col. 2.22. and elsewhere.

The Minor likewise I conceive to be evident, Because there is no such worship to Christ taught by God, or Christ himselfe, as the bowing of the Body to him upon the mention, or sounding of the Name Iesus. As for that place Phil. 2.10. which some look upon as countenancing this worship; I conceive it doth not so much as look towards it. For First it is here said, not that at the Name of Jesus, [Page 2]but [...], in the name of Iesus every knee shall bow. The Proposition iv, in, never (to my remembrance) noting the time when, (except it be in construction with words, signifying time, as Mark 1.9. It came to passe in those dayes, and such like.) But very fre­quently the cause for, or through which, as Mark. 11.28. [...]: in what power, that is, by or through what power dost thou these things; So Rom 7.23. [...], carrying me or leading me Captive in, that is, by the Law of sin, besides many other like instances: so that the name of Iesus here meant must not be any name made of letters and sillables, but of power, majesty and terror: because there must be found in this Name that, which must be that efficient cause of the sujection here spoken of, that which must command this bowing the knee from all Creatures whatsoever, which of all li­terall names or titles that are given to Christ in the Scriptures, is least of all intimated in that sweet and gracious Name of Iesus, a Saviour: what is there in that Name to compell or force the Devils to bow the knee unto him?

Secondly, neither is it here said that, [...], but [...], not that at, or in the name Jesus: but in the name (of) Iesus every knee shall bow, as all translators read i [...]. Now any other name or title given to our Saviour in the Scripture, as Christ, Emanuel, &c. may in better propriety of speech be called the names of Iesus, then Jesus it selfe, to urge and say that Iesus is the name of Iesus, savours not the dialect of the Holy-Ghost.

Thirdly, That name of Iesus here spoken of, wherein it is said that every knee shall bow, is such a name as was not given to Christ, till after his sufferings; and at the time of his exaltation and sitting down at the right hand of majesty: for it is expresly said, to have bin given unto him by God (his Father) by way of reward or recompence, for that great service he did unto him in that great abasement and humiliation of himselfe unto death: Wherfore (saith the Text) God hath exalted him, and given him a Name, verse 9. namely for that obedi­ence and humiliation of himselfe, mentioned verse 6, 7, 8. But the name Iesus, we know was given unto him long before, at the time of his Circumcision; therfore this is not the name that every knee shall bow at.

Fourthly, If this worship of bowing at the name Iesus were com­manded in this Scripture, then were it a sinne and simply unlawfull to omit it at any time whensoever it sounds, which no man ever yet affirmed that I have heard of.

Fiftly, If bowing the body at the name Iesus be enjoyned in this Text, by the same interpretation, the Confessing with the tongue [Page 3]that Iesus Christ is the Lord, must be injoyned also, and as altogether necessary as the other: for those things which God hath joyned to­gether can no man put asunder.

Sixtly, If this worship of Christ (of bowing to him) mentioned in this place be due unto him in relation to his Name Iesus, or as he is a Saviour: how come the things under the earth (by which all in­terpreters that I know understand the Devils, except some Popish, that fish for Purgatory in the words.) How come the Divels (I said) to be charged with men, touching the exhibiting of this reverence or adoration to Christ, who (we know) have neither part nor fel­lowship with them in that great and gratious businesse of salvation?

Seventhly, I doe not know any Orthodox or ancient interpreter, so to interpret the place.

Object. But perhaps it wilbe said, Notwithstanding, though this Scripture will not carry it, yet will it not follow that bowing at the, name of Jesus should be will-worship, because bowing to his person being a prescribed and un­questionable lawfull worship, it may be performed at any time: and ther­fore at such a time as the name Jesus is named, aswell as at any other time: for election of a mans time when be will worship God, doth [...]ot alter the nature of the worship; nor make it ever the more will-worship.

Anſwere To this I Answer, True election of time for the worship of God, or of Christ, in respect of Conveniencie, and freedome from distraction of businesse: or in respect of any such circumstance as may really fur­ther or better the worship, hath no such influence into it, as to alter or change the nature of it, because such a choyce of time is rather of Gods chusing then of ours; for the Scriptures without, and the Law of Conscience within, commands us to make choyce of such time when we may serve and worship God after the best and holyest manner. But to rule the election of time, for giving any outward act of worship or adoration unto God, by any such Circumstance which hath no relation at all to this worship; (I meane to better it or further it in him that performs it,) but only that which is foun­ded on the device of men, I conceive to be an unlawfull election, and not to be made. As for example, for a man to make choyce of the time to bow himselfe to God, when he stands before an Image, were simply unlawfull, because he regulates the choyse of his time by such a Circumstance as doth no way further him in that act of worship, but directly tends both to further the Idolater in his wick­ed opinion, who thinks he doth well to worship God, in an Image, and also to scandalize those that are weake.

Therfore to chuse a time to worship Christ when such a certaine [Page 4]name of his shal be presented unto us, which makes indeed a repre­sentation of him unto us, as an Image doth: but hath nothing more in it to further such an act of adoration, then an Image hath, and hath in like manner bin abused as Images have, and is apt to cause the like offence, as bowing to God before an Image doth, is an un­lawfull election for the time of such worship.

Object. If it be further replyed and sayd,That the name Jesus is of Divine Institution: for the representation of his person to the mind and spirit of a man, wheras the Image is purely humane: and besides that there is an intima­tion of that salvation which comes by him, given out by the name Iesus, which is no way intimated in an Image: and therfore that there is no Compa­rison to he made between bowing at the name Iesus, and before an Image.

Anſwere To this I Answere: First, though there be some difference be­tween the name Iesus, and an Image of Christ in respect of the institu­tion, yet in respect of representation made by either, there is none: for the Image represents to the mind that very same person (and no o­ther) which the name doth: so that if the worship be lawful in respect of the representation simply, which is made by the name Iesus, it wilbe as lawfull before the Image, because as (I say) there is a repre­sentation also of the same person.

Secondly, though the name Iesus be of divine institution for the representation of the person, wherein the Image fayles, yet in respect of any outward adoration, to be giuen unto this representation by that name, there is no more to be found of any divine institution, for the name, then for the Image, so that to expresse an outward act of adoration upon the bare sound or hearing of the name, having no more warrant from God then doing the like before an Image hath; it apparently follows, that they are both worships of the same na­ture, and one to have asmuch in it of the will of Man as the o­ther.

Thirdly, the name Iesus being of divine institution, which the Image is not: it is a greater sinne any wayes to misuse it, either by obscu­ring or perverting the intentions of God in it, or by multiplying our own upon it, then it is to abuse an Image, which is but the device of mens heads, and the works of their hands.

Fourthly, however in respect of institution, the name may seem more capable of adoration then the Image: yet since the name is not so apropriated to the person of Christ by divine institution in respect of the letters and sound of it, but that it is common to other persons with him, and represent others to the mind as well as Him; whereas [Page 5]the Image is wholly appropriated unto him, and represents no other to the mind but him alone; in this respect the Image seems to be the safer and better call to exhibite worship unto Christ, then the bare sound of the name, because it doth not give that certaine and distinct signification or representation of the person to be worshipped, which the Image doth. As Paul speakes of the Trumpet, Cor. 1.14.8. If it give an uncertaine sound, who shall prepare himselfe to the battell? so this name Iesus, giving only an uncertaine sound or representation, re­presenting aswell other persons to the mind that are not to be wor­shipped, aswell as him to whom the worship is due, it seems a very unfit signat for worship to be given unto it, yea in this respect which is most intrinsecall and essentiall to the point in hand, it comes short of the Image.

Fifthly, (and Lastly) wheras it is layd in the Objection, that there is in the name an intimation given of that salvation which comes to the world by him, which is not in the Image. To this I Answer Three things:

First, That there is in the Crucifix more then an intimation gi­ven of that salvation that comes by him; there is a representation of that death, and those sufferings by which that salvation was purchased and wrought.

Secondly, If that an intimation of the salvation that comes by Christ be a proper and sufficient ground to found an act of adoration upon, then is the name and title of Saviour, the fittest summons for men of this Nation, who (generally) understand not the intimations, or significations of Names in other Languages, but only in their own.

Lastly, if that an intimation of salvation coming by Christ, were proper to build an act of outward worship or adoration upon; then this worship is rather to be given, when any such sentence is read, or spo­ken, which prospicuously and fully informeth the mind and soule hereof, then at the mention of that Name Iesus. As for example, upon the hearing of this or the like sentences in Scripture, The Son of man come to seek & save that which was lost: as that Rom. 5.8. Whilest we wer yet sinners Christ died for us. Or that Io. 3. So God loved the world, &c. in these and many the like sayings, there is a full intimation or sig­nification of that great salvation, that comes by Christ more then is the bare mention of the name Iesus. By all which it evidently ap­peareth, that in respect of any lawfull or warrantable ground for an outward act of adoration, there is no more in the sound or name Iesus then in an Image.

The second Argument.

NO Command or invention of men, that superinduceth any other use or device upon any the sacred names or titles of God, beyond what himself hath declared in his Word, is to be received: But this Command of bowing doth this, it makes the name or title Jesus, to serve for another purpose then God hath any where declared. Ergo such a command is not to be received.

The Major (I conceive) will not be denyed: Because for men to meddle with any of the great and fearfull names of God, and to dispose of them as they please, without expresse Authority from himselfe, is presumption of the highest magnitude.

The Minor likewise hath evidence enough to be beleeved, because there is not the least intimation in the Scripture that God ever in­tended that any such use should ever be made of the name Iesus, as to summon men to bow their bodyes at the name or sound of it.

ARGUMENT. 3.

THat practise which directly tendeth to revive an ancient Heresie, or dangerous opinion in the Church (especially having nothing in it to counterpoyce such a danger) is not to be introduced or assented unto. But this practise of bowing at the name Iesus, directly tendeth hereunto, and hath no­thing at all to counterpoyse such a danger: therfore it is not to be introduced or assented unto.

The Major carryeth its own light with it.

The Minor is thus clearely proved; That which directly tendeth to induce men to think or beleeve that Iesus and Christ are two dif­ferent persons, and that Iesus is more excellent then Christ, directly tendeth to revive an old and dangerous Heresie (viz. that of Corin­t [...] and others, who held that Iesus and Christ were two persons: and the one greater then the other.) But this boweng at the name of [Page 7] Iesus, (other names being passed over without the like reverence done at the mention of them) directly tendeth to induce men to think, &c. Ergo.

The reason of the Minor is, because reverence argueth excellency upon whomsoever its cast or conferred: and where either it is de­nyed or not exhibited, it implyeth a person or condition of lesse excellencie.

ARGUMENT. 4.

ALl worship of God that is not grounded upon the Morall Law, is Adulterous worship, and not to be tendered or exhibited.

But this bowing at the name Iesus is a worship not founded upon the Morall Law. Ergo.

The Major I conceive unquestionable: Because the worship of God being a Morall duty, (and that of the chiefest and highest ranke,) it can have no other rule or foundation, but the Morall Law: and the same Author, that hath power to exact a new worship, must have power also to make a new Law (or further it) because there is no act (especially Religious) justifiable, but by some rule: where by the rectitude or goodnesse of it must be tryed and demonstrated.

Object. If it be said, This bowing is no worship, but a pious ceremony, or signe, or outward expression of worship, or the like:

Anſwere. I Answer: to deny bowing the body unto God, to be truly and properly worship, is to overthrow the whole species or kind of that, which we call externall worship: for what outward act of the body is rather to be called worship, then bowing down the body; prostra­tion happily, or falling flat on the ground, may be conceived a further degree of this worship: But if prostration before God be worship pro­perly so called; then must bowing down of the body towards the earth unto him, be of the same kind of worship also: because it is a degree or part of the same act.

Secondly, if bowing the knee to Christ be no worship of him, it must needs be a mocking of him, as it is said of the Roman Souldiers (Mat 27.29.) They bowed their knees before him, and mocked him, &c. he that boweth the knee to the Lord Chr [...]st, and do [...]h not intend to honour and worship him in it, doubtlesse mocketh him thereby.

Thirdly, there is nothing more apparent from the Scripture, then that bowing the knee is worship (properly so called) yea the worship of God is often signified by bowing the knee before him, Isa. 45.23. I have sworne by myselfe (saith God) that every knee shall hew unto me.

The Minor is thus declared, That worship of God which is built upon an Ecclesiasticall Constitution, is not founded upon the Moral Law But this worship of bowing is built upon an Ecclesiasticall Constitution.

Ergo, &c.

The Major I explicate and demonstrate thus: Two Laws which are not subordinate (I meane w [...]th a logicall subordination,) but contradistinguished one against the other, cannot be together the ground of one and the same duty. But the Law Morall, and Law Ec­clesiasticall are Laws of a different kind, not subordinate, but contra­d [...]stinguished. Ergo, &c.

The reason of the Minor is: Because Ordinations, or Constitutions Ecclesiasticall, respect matters of circumstance, and things indifferent; the Morall Law only treateth of, and obligeth to things of absolute necessity.

Objection. If it be here Objected and said though, The subject matter of Eccle­siasticall Laws and Constittuions be (in the generall) matters of indifferencie and decencie, about the worship of God: yet if such Constitutions take, in any part of the Morality of it this maketh it not will worship, because it is the will of man it should be done, supposing it to be the will of God first.

Anſwere. To this I Answere. True, if this were the case, then were there no exception to be taken against the thing it selfe, but onely against the methodicall proceeding of the Constitution, promiscuously im­posing things of meere indifferencie, with things of absolute necessity. But it hath not yet bin proved, that this worship hath any other Mo­ther, but either the Constitutions or Customes of men; the Word of God, or Morall Law cannot yet be compelled to owne, or to acknowledge it; so then it being the Son of a stranger, it is not to be brought into the Temple of the Lord.

Objection. If it be further Objected, That this rule makes as strongly against kneel­ing at the Communion, as against bowing at the name of Jesus, because it hath no other foundation, but the like Ecclesiasticall Constitution.

Anſwer. To this I Answer: No: It is farre otherwise in this; In the duty of receiving of the Sacrament, there is a con [...]urrence of sundry spirituall and inward acts or duties of the soule, whereunto the out­ward gesture of kneeling is naturall, and sutable, and sufficiently licenced, and warranted in the Scripture, (though it be no where indeed determined, to be of absolute necessity in the performance of the same. As for example, there is an act of thanksgiving, in the duty of receiving, which being a branch of prayer (largely taken) there can [Page 9]be no outward gesture more natural and sutable to it, then kneeling. Besides there is an act of prayer (strictly taken) &c.

But there is no such speciall duty in hand, or performance, when the name Jesus is mentioned: upon which this gesture of bowing should be rounded, but only the duties of hearing and attending the Word of God, whereunto all other gestures of standing, or sitting, are much more convenient, and have approbation from the Scriptures. The former of standing, Nehe 8.5. Mat. 13.2. and elsewhere: the latter of sitting, Ezek. 20.1. & 33.31. Mar. 3.34. &c. So that to injoyne bow­ing still upon the pronunciation of the name Jesus, in the middest of the Service, whether it be in the hearing of a Chapter, or Gospell read, wherein those other gestures of standing, or sitting, are by the same Authority allowed: besides that, it wants a speciall foundation to build it upon; it dissolves (for the time) those other gestures which the Scriptures allow, substituting another in their stead unknown to them: and further it condemnes that which it allows, by censuring men for sitting, or standing, then when they have allowed both as lawfull.

ARGVMENT. 5.

THhat which (at the best) is a compound worship, to the framing and making up wherof there is a concurrence, partly of the will of God, partly of the will and wisdome of men, is an unlawful worship, especially when that which is from man is the form spirit and life of the worship: and that which is from God is but the materiall and lesse principall part of it. But such is this worship of bowing, &c. Ergo

The Major I conceive needs no reliefe from any truth clearer then it selfe.

The Minor is thus proved. If only the outward act, the bowing of the body be from God: but the bowing of it at such a time, and upon such an occasion, be from Man, then it is a compound worship, yea and that which is formall and principall in it is from Man, and only that which is weake and lesse regarded is from God. But the antecedent is true, (namely) that the bowing of the body only is from God: but the bowing at such a time, and upon such an occasion is from Man. Therfore the consequence or Counclusion is true also, viz. That that worship is a mixt and compound worship, and that [Page 10]which is principall and most esteemed from Man, and onely the neglected and lesse principall part of it from God: the Consequence is evident in both the parts and members of it.

1. That which hath a plurality and diversity of ingredients in it, must needs be a thing compounded. And secondly, for the latter part of it, that which is from God (if any thing at all be in it from him (viz. the bowing of the body is but the materiall, and lesse principall part of it: but that which is from Man, namely to do it at such a time, and upon such an ocasion, is the formall and principall part of it, appeares thus: Beecause let the Body be bowed never so diligently and frequently, upon the mention of all other names of Christ, as Lord, Saviour, &c yet this is not regarded, no more then a dead car­kasse when the life is departed from it; nor taken for the worship commanded. Therfore that which gives the life and essence to it, is not that which makes it an act of adoration: neither is it the exhi­biting of it, to the person for whom it is claimed (as pretence is made) but it is the exhibition of it, sub tali signo, upon such a sound. This is that which gives it the speciall nature, and makes it to b [...] accepted and acknowledged for the worship commanded. Therfore this is the life and soule, and all in all of this worship.

Now for the Minor Proposition. That this Circumstance or point in it, that it should and must be given precisely at such a time, is purely from man and not from God, hath sufficiently bin demon­strated already; and the Argument that evinceth it, beyond all con­tradiction, is soon repeated▪ there is not the least intimation from God at all in the Scripture that any thing more should be done in this kind too, or upon the name Iesus, then to any other name or title, whether of God or of Christ. Therfore to found an act of wor­ship upon the mention or sound of the name Iesus is purely and abso­lutely from Man, and not from God.

ARGUMENT. 6.

IT is a thing unlawfull to lay a stumbling blocke in the way of the weake or blind. Then it is unlawfull to require such worship, at the mention or sound of the name Iesus, or to countenance any such Command. But this is simply un­lawfull, Levit. 19.14. Ergo.

The Consequence wilbe reduced to a lightsome truth by rea­soning thus, to injoyne any worship of God, in such away or upon such termes, whereby the weake and simple (yea and the wiser also) may e [...]sily be insnared, drawn and provoked, to commit Idolatry, at least to commit absurdity, and give divine worship, to that which is not such, is an unlawfull injunction, and it is sin to countenance it. But that injunction to bow at the name of Iesus, is such an injunction, Ergo &c.

The Major I conceive is rich in evidence of cleare truth.

The Minor likewise is not of any difficult proofe, viz. that the injunction and practice of bowing, is in the nature of it apt to mislead the simple, either into Idolatry, or absurdity. That which directly occasions men to worship those who were but meere men, or to bow upon the mention of their Names, directly and in the nature of it, leads men either to commit Idolatry, or (in the best inter­pretation) a grosse absurdity in the service of God. But this Com­mand and practice of b [...]wing at the name Jesus, directly tends to one or both of these. Ergo▪

The Minor is cleare because the name Iesus is a name common to others, besides the Lord Jesus, as to Josua, who is called Jesus, Heb. 4 8. And Iesus the Son of Syrach: and Bar-Iesus a Conjurer, Acts 13.6. Now how easie it is for the simple to mistake one person for ano­ther, that goeth in the same name with him, without any distin­ction or note of difference in the sound, none can be ignorant of.

ARGUMENT. 7.

NO outward Ceremony or act of worship that tends to the prejudice, and interruption of the worship and service of God, which is more inward and spirituall is to be received and yeelded unto. But such is the practise of bowing at the name of Jesus. Ergo.

The Major Proposition is evident: because duties of inferiour nature and consequence, when greater are in place, and cannot be performed in their due manner; when these are thrust upon them, are no duties in such a case: but all their obligatory vertue and power is suspended for that time.

And for the other Proposition, that bowing at the name of Iesus is [Page 12]such a worship, or outward act, that cannot stand with the due performance of that which is greater, and more spirituall, it is clearly demonstrable from hence: Because attentive hearing and minding the Word of God, either read or preached, is such a duty, that cannot but be interrup­ted, and suffer distraction and diversion of the mind, if the other duty of bowing be attended also. The mind of man finds a marvelous dif­ficulty and insufficiency in it selfe, to give that diligent and deep intention to the Word of God, which belongs to it, when it hath its full strength intire, and unbroken with any other collaterall occa­sions, when it is in the greatest freedome that may be from all other thoughts. Ergo, If it shalbe burdened in the time of hearing with the care and purpose of bowing, when such a word or sound comes forth, this cannot but much break and weaken the intenti [...]n of it.

Objection. If it be said: But there is no necessity of thinking of bowing till the time come, and the name be in the Eare.

Anſwer. I Answer, he that really and seriously intends to bow when the sound comes, can hardly forbeare thinking of it againe and againe before hand, and will have much adoe to keep the sound out of his imagination, before it comes at his Eare. Let any man make a narrow experiment in himselfe, and ingenuously confesse what he finds, I make no doubt but his confession hath been already drawn to his hands in this Argument.

ARGUMENT. 8.

THat worship which intends to exalt one name of God, or of Christ before others; and to bring all the rest into contempt, is at no hand to be condescended unto. But such is this bowing worship at the name of Jesus, it tends to magnifie one name of Christ, with the disparagement of all the rest. Ergo.

The Major I take for granted: Because whatsoever reflects pre­judice upon any of the great and sacred names and titles of God upon any pretence whatsoever, is not to be indured.

The Minor is thus confirmed, because this name only being judged a fit medium of conveying a speciall honour, or service to Christ: and others not thought worthy of such an office or imploy­ment, [Page 13]this must needs turne to a reproch unto them that they shall all be defective this way in comparison of this one.

Object. Neither is it any part of satisfaction to say, That it is not denyed unto the rest, men may doe the same reverence upon the mention of any other name.

Aſwere. To this I Answere, That it manifestly argues a comparative con­tempt, when there is honour and reverence, setled upon one by a Law, and men set at liberty to deale with the rest, as they please: It is a signe that the Law-makers take not much care what becomes of the rest, so the name they have fancied may be exalted, that their fancy likewise may be exalted with it.

Secondly, If this knee-service were done upon the mention of every name or title of Christ besides, somtimes it might so fall out, (viz.) when such names come, many, or very oft together, that it may make the body of the Service ridiculous, and a good part of it a little better then a meere distraction. Ergo, The liberty that is left to men in this case, doth not ease the businesse at all: because if it be taken in the way, by which it is intended that the other names of Christ shalbe brought to an equality of honour with that of Iesus; the truth is it wilbe so farre from doing this, that it will bring them al­together, one and other without exception into contempt.

ARGUMENT. 9.

THat worship of Christ which reflects disparagement upon the other two persons, as though they were inferiour to him, and worthy of lesse honour is at no hand to be allowed.

But this worship is such a worship, injoyned only to the se­cond person.

It is true, God hath given all the honour and dignity unto Christ, whereof he now stands poffessed, as Mediator, to this end, that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father, Io. 5.23. but that men should honour him above the Father, or with any such worship wherewith the Father is not honoured: there is no Scrip­ture will beare it, nor the analogy of Faith indure it.

Object. If it be replyed and said: That the same honour may be exhibited to the [Page 14]other persons, when men will, they are not restrained in this case.

Anſwer. To this I Answere (in effect as before) this liberty left unto men doth no way justifie the command, by which the speciall and peculiar worship to the second Person is injoyned; the other two Persons be­ing passed over, it provides no such worship, either for the Father, or for the Holy-Ghost; it gives men liberty aswell to deprive them of it, as to referre it unto them.

Objection. Neither is it of any greater value to say and pretend, That in bow­ing to Christ we bow to the whole Trinity in him, and that it is no more a disparagement to the other Persons to referre a speciall honour upon Christ (so they be not excluded in it) then for a man to direct his prayers unto any one of the Persons alone, which is no disparagement or neglect of the other, if he doe not exclude them? though he addresseth himselfe actually to one onely in prayer.

Anſwer. To this the reply is, That the case is altogether unlike, because first, though it be lawfull at any time to direct a mans prayer to any one of the three Persons (but supposing the other two not excluded, though they be not actually intended) yet is there strict provision made in the Scripture, and command given for the same divine wor­ship, to be exhibited to them all, whereas the worship of bowing is by the Commandement setled only upon the second Person, and not so much as the least mention made of either of the other, as having any right to communicate in the same worship with him.

Secondly, a man directing his prayers at one time, to one of the Persons in particular, may at another time direct it to another, and the third time to a third; and so the equality of the Persons is fully acknowledged. But in the command, and tender of this knee-worship, a man is sent with it onely to the Son; neither will it serve or be accepted to tender this honour to the Son, in the Father, or in the Holy-Ghost (as in prayer it is accepted with God) but it will suffice in this knee-worship, that the Father and Holy Ghost be wor­sh [...]pped in the Son; yea if they be not worshipped, it will serve also: by which it appeares evidently, that there is a wide difference be­tween the one and the other.

Thirdly, if the Scripture had limited, or restrained the duty or worship of prayer, to one of the Persons onely limited, I meane in such a sense that it had mentioned only this one Person, as capable of this worship, and had given no intimation of the like capacity in the other two (though it had not expresly excepted against them in this behalfe) it is evident, that it had established, or at least strongly intimated an inequality between the Persons, and given a prehemi­nence [Page 7]to the one above the other two. This is the very case of this Precept for bowing at the Name Iesus, there is a full establishment of a capacity of this worship in the second Person: but there is not the least intimation given of the like capacity in either of the other. Ergo, It directly tends to set up a conceipt of an unequality between the persons in the minds of men, and therfore it is not to be assen­ted unto.

ARGVMENT 10.

NO outward worship or service of God, that can have no other reasonable end, but only to intrappe and insnare the faithfull servants of God, is not to be indured: But such is this bowing worship. Ergo.

Object. But if it be here excepted and said, It serves to testifie the inward re­verence of the heart, and the frame of the soule how it stands affected to the Lord Iesus; and what can be a more reall end.

Anſwere. First, to this I Answer, it is commanded to be done, whether the heart be inwardly [...] to God or no▪ so that if that be the intent of it, to expresse the inward reverence of the soule to Christ: Then is the commanding of it a snare unto men, to intangle them with the signe of hypocrisie, because it is not in any mans power to have his heart inw [...]rly affected when he pleaseth. But the command of bowing, in­joy [...]es him to the outward [...]orship, whether he find his heart inward­ly affected yea or no Now to compell a man to make profession of some good which is not in truth in him, what is this but to com­mand dissimulation: and for the greatest part of those that are most taken with, and most pliable to this posture, it is more then aparent, that for any inward soule reverence to Christ, they have little to doe with it: So that to command all without exception to doe it, there is no interpretation to salve it, but that it is to com­mand the greatest part of those to whom it is injoyned to professe that outwardly, which they are not within, which in plain speaking is grosse dissimulation.

2. If it be the proper end and intent of this Ceremoniall wor­ship, to testifie the inward reverence of the soule to Christ, then should it rather be commanded to be done at such times indefinitely, when a man finds the impression of such a reverence upon his spirit; and [Page 10]not determinately when ever he heares the sound of the Name Iesus, Out of the aboundance of the heart the mouth speaketh: and so it is fittest for all the body to speake, and not when the heart is empty.

3. If a definite time be fit to he appointed, when men shall bow their bodies to Christ, in token of their inward reverence, it should ra­ther be when some of those great things he hath done for us were mentioned, then, when only this bare name is recited: because there is not so much in the bare Name, which is scarsely herd to affect the heart towards him, as when that goodnesse and mercy which is seen in that great salvation he hath purchased for us, is displayed before our eyes.

4. Lastly, it is a thing altogether unreasonable, when things that are stronger, and more spirituall are in place, especially when that which is a more full, and more genuine exercise must give place for a time, to make way for that which is inferiour to it.

But reverence in attention to the Word of God and Christ is doubt­lesse a greater and fuller exercise, and testimony of greater inward re­verence of the heart, then bowing at the name of Iesus is: The Sould [...]ers that put him to death bowed the knee to him in derision: but for out­ward reverence in hearing the Scriptures, though it may be taken up by those that have no true love to God, or his Word, yet God himself gives testimony of it, as a seemly behaviour well becoming his peo­ple, Ezek. 32. Ergo, For a man to break off and interrupt a more so­lemn exercise to Christ, which reverent [...] in a reverent attention to his Word, whether it be sitting, or standing, onely to in­troduce a heterogenity, & lesse pertinent exercise in bowing, I conceive is not that reasonable service of God, which the Scriptures call for, and require at every mans hands.

ARGUMENT. 11.

THat worship which neither the Law of God nor the Law of Man, nor the Church whereof we are members, impo­ses; ought not to be assented unto, or entertained. But such is this bowing it is neither commanded in this case by the Law of God, neither is there any Canon, or Constitution of the Church. Ergo, &c.

The Major is without exception.

As for the Minor, That this worship is not commanded by the Law of God, it hath been sufficiently declared already. For the latter member of it (that it is not commanded by any canon or Constitution of the Church, may thus appeare, if not by the 18. Canon, then not at all. But that it is not commanded by the 18. Canon, These considerations make it every whit asmuch, if not more then) probable.

1. That worsh [...]p or reverence here advis [...]d or called for, is only such a worship or reverence as is due, for that is the first and prin­cipall qualification of it, by which the other two, (us and all) must be interpreted. Now the rule in Law is, That is due which is required by the Law of God. But such reverence or worship of Christ, which the Law of God doth not require, is not that worship which the Canon adviseth unto. But now as concerning the bowing worship or reve­rence in this case, it hath bin often proved, to have bin no where required by the Law of God.

Objection. If it be Objected, That the word due may have reference to some former Law or Constituteon of the Church, aswell as to the Law of God, in respect whereof it may be called due.

Anſwer. I Answere. First, that this being left doubtfull, and undetermi­ned in the Canon, whether it be such a worship as is due by the Law of God, or by the Law of the Church, then the interpretation of the Canon, is not to be left too or made by any one man or more: but by a Convocation of the Clergy, under the broad Seale, as is expres­ly injoyned by his Majesties Declaration, prefixed before the last Impression, in the Book of the (39.) Articles of Religion. (Ergo) as yet till the Canon be made to speak more plaine by this Autho­rity, there is no Authority sufficiently peremptory to impose any such worship, by vertue of the Canon.

But Secondly, suppose it be granted that the word due, hath, or may have reference to some former Constitution of the Church; yet till such a Canon be produced, which hitherto hath not been, neither ever will, or can be, where this reverence of bowing the body or knee, precisely, or determinately is injoyned; till then there is nothing to be had out of the Canon for bowing.

2. That reverence to Christ the Canon adviseth unto, is only such a reverence as hath bin accustomed. Now to what custome this word referreth there is nothing determined of it, it [...]s not in any probability but that it is either to the Church of God in generall, or to the custome of the Church of God in England; as for what hath bin accustomed in the Church m [...]lignant, of Popery I presume, the Canon looks not after it. Now that it hath neither bin the Custome of the Church Catholicke; nor the custome of the Church of Eng­land to bow still at the name of Iesus: I know no Authenticke Author [Page 14]that can testifie; as for the practise of some particular, either place, or person, it will not amount to make that which is properly called a Custome.

3. But if the words of the Canon (Due, lowly, and Customed) be understood, of any humble deportment, and reverent Composure of the outward man, in the hearing of the word of Christ; then will the sence be more expedient and cleare, then wilbe found in any other interpretation; for suah a reverence is, (first) apparently Due, from the Word of God, and his Law, and the Law of the Church. And (Se­condly) it is, lowly, the body every way framed to the humble de­portment of the soule. (Thirdly) such a reverence hath bin still accustomed, and is still the custome of all the true Servants of God, both in England and elswhere: those Three qualifications of (Due, Lowly, and Reverend) will never be made so really, and so generally into the worship of bowing, as they doe to that reverent and humble attention of hearing the word of God, and this is most plyable to the meaning of the Canon.

4 Nothing is injoyned in this Canon, that is not prescribed nor mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer: and it is evident from hence, because in the Act of Conformity prefixed, before the Book, if there be any other Ceremony in the service of God, it is prohibited under the penalty: but for the Ceremony of bowing at the name of Iesus, the Book of Common Prayer no where mentions. (Ergo) it is not likely to be injoyned, or if that be granted, then the Book of Common Prayer will fall heavy upon him, that shall observe the Canon: on the other side, the Canon will condemn him that shall observe the Book of Common Prayer.

5. His Majesties speciall Command and pleasure is in the former Declaration, that the literall and Grammaticall sence shall still be taken, and no other; But now if the Canon have no other Midwife, but the literall and Grammaticall sence, it will never be delivered of this bowing worship, at the name of Iesus. If the canon were exactly translated, into all languages, and suit made to the best Grammari­ans of all Nations, to give the literall sence of it, it is not to be con­ceived, that any one of them would ever find, that bowing the body at the sound of the name Iesus, would ever to be meant by it.