Answer.

Your first is nothing; and your reason as little. You say tis no way necessary so to understand it; because N [...]me is not generally so taken. We affirme it cannot bee so taken: because a Name without a thing is nothing: the second notion subsists not, save in the first: the Name of Iesus is not his without him.

Your second and third bee coincident and included in the first.

Answer.

Here's mickle a doe and nothing done; the reason is, your Logicke holds no sence, a plaine non sequitur at first, and this it. If the high advanced Name in the Text be a proper Name, it will follow necessarily that all subjected names must be proper N [...]mes also; prove the consequence if you ca [...]: till you doe, I tell you, that if you understand by a proper Name, as before, a Name sepa­rated from the sence, your inference, a non existente, is most ab­surd: but if you mind the Name in the sence of the Name, bee it the highest, not of proper onely, but of common also: above Muscall and Giles, &c. above all below, all above, I except not, no not I, the Name of God. See my Antiteichisma, pag. 18, and there your inferences in this place will appeare, tanquam puero­rum naenia, or like any thing that may please children.

How the Name of Iesus is, and why exalted, shall come at your next sixtly, and afterward often. What is intimated by every Name under super, in the second section, and as occasion is offe­red in the progresse.

To your lastly, I say every one knows we are no Anthropomorphites, and if any would know whence your horrid blasphemous conceit [Page 5] of Gods bowing knees to the Name Iesus proceedes, Physiti­ans will teach them, that when the humours of the braine are o­ver servent, by their agitation, mens in falsa traducitur,

Answer.

At your concessum in this second place, the six reasons have not web enough to entangle a flye; so insufficient they, that your ne­gative proposition will no more be, then be supported by your word.

The first is, the word Iesus doth no where in the whole new Testament signifie the bare name Jesus, therefore Name above e­very name, as a bare name, may not bee understood of the Name Iesus, as a bare Name.

Here is stuffe for an Antagonist; who ever conceived save you▪ that the word Jesus doth signifie the word Jesus? and doe you in earnest affirme i [...] at Mat. 1.21, Lu. 2.21. I never read it so there, nor elsewhere. But if this might be granted, why should not the Name above every Name be spoken of Jesus? [...] the Name is Ieho­vah in the old, and may not [...], Name above e­very Name be Jesus in the n [...]w? looke againe, and you shall often find a Pariphrasis of that Name, and Name often used for Jesus, Act. 5.41.

Answer.

Secondly, (this phrase [...], Name, rather the Name, of Jesus is never taken in the New Testament for the Name Jesus) that is, the Name in the sense, if I understand you, is not with­out the sense. Therefore Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare Name.

If our Worship were thus metaphysicall, could any Logician overthrow it with this argument? Infer the Enthymeme, and when I am such a Word-worshipper you shall convert. Here's no more required of me till you have rendred me more reason.

To your next supposition (if any shall thinke that [...], you would say, [...], is meant of the Name Jesus by ap­position, because no Article is prefixed to [...]) I answer; if I should say so, all your skill in Grammer cannot disprove it; but the phrase being usuall, and [...] not prefixed, tis argument enough to me, that it must be the genitive. The genitive it shall be, and so much the stronger against you. For the genitive being the first in­tention, the dative cannot be the same: as in your cited places, Act. 2.38. &c.

Answer.

Thirdly, The Name above every Name, is incommunicable. Therefore Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be un­derstood of the Name Iesus, as a bare Name. And your reason is because the Name Iesus was communicated to others, as to Ioshuah. Heb. 4.8.

This is as the worst, and may doe you some pleasure, when you have learned of Confessor Prinne, or Fath [...]r Burton that the Name Jesus, which is Jesus his Name at Phil. 2. is attributed to an­other. But whither will not impudency? When ignorance may challenge such religious, and learned men, as Bishop Andrewes, and D. Page, Atheisme is at hand. Have you forgot, or did you never reade Chilo's [...], Heed it now,Iuvenal. Sat. 11. and say with the Poet, e caelo descendit. Had you published your Pamphlet under the hands of ten learned Divines, as you promised, I would have ex­ceeded my selfe in the vindication of that honour, which can ne­ver be at losse by your Pen. What there they affi [...]me I avoyd, and you may see how far in my Antiteichis. pag. 22.23. I will only look upon your answer, and let the world view the extent of your fol­ly.

Bishop Andrews, and D. Page say, the Name Christ is communica­ted by him to others, namely to Princes: So is not Jesus. That's one reason of divers.

In r [...]pel [...]ing this you have overturned your selfe. (Some are no more called the Lords Christs, then others the Lords Saviours; therfore the Name Jesus is communicated.) Tis true that God in his great mercies gave the Israelites Saviours; Neh. 9.27. [...], Salvatores, yet not one of them to be, [...], as Je­sus is a Saviour. And if there be any surreptitious taking, tis no communication of it. Your quotation of Ʋrsinus is not ad idem, and you may learne of others, that Joshuah received that Name by Moses, not of his parents.

But may no man beare the Name Christ, as a Name ordinarily to be called by, without blasphemy? Is this your tenet, and the way to super-exalt the Name Christ? What thinke you then of Christo­pher? Why doe you confesse that Kings are Christs? Nay are wee not all [...], and denominated Christians? Doe they and we blas­pheme, because we, and they be so called? Mat. 24.23.24. in­hibits [Page 8] not the usurpation in that sense, but our impropriation of it in the highest.

Answer.

Fourthly, This Name Jesus, was given to him in the begin­ning of his humiliation. Therefore the Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare Name.

This is the fourth inconsequence, and answered in my Antiti. pag. 13. 14. 15. Where you may know that the Name is the same be­fore and after. What you promise here to demonstrate hereafter, shall be answered then.

Answer.

Fifthly, Iesus was advanced after his resurrection to be Lord and Christ, Act. 2.36. Therefore the Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of Jesus, as a bare Name.

This and the preceding consequence smell of Arrianisme. As if Jesus were not before, what he was declared to be after the re­surrection, Lord and Christ.

That which is so considerable with you, as the reason, viz. that the Evangelists doe usually call him by the Name Jesus onely in the time of his humiliation, is more then inconside [...]at y ven [...]ed by you. Because there he is more often called by the N [...]m [...] Jesus, then any other Name. After his resurrection, in the 4. Eva [...]g lists, [Page 9] and in the first of the Acts, you shall find Jesus forty five times, and Christ but twice.

Your second observatum, that in the Epistles he is most com­monly stiled Christ, is nothing, unlesse you had said Christ Sejun­ctim, and not Jesus. But that you cannot, yet if you could, and the first and second were true, you might infer no more, then that Jesus who once was decryed, is now cryed up Lord and Christ.

Answer.

Sixtly it is against the Scripture, to preferre the Name Iesus a­bove other divine Titles: therefore the name above every Name as a bare Name, may not be understood of Iesus as a bare Name: your medium to uphold the antecedent is, that God in subiecting all things to Christ, did yet except himselfe. 1 Cor. 15, 27.

What's this to the Name? but here you doe, petere caelum Stultitia, even what you can to overthrow the gracious dispensation of God. As if the three equall might not choose one through, by, and in whom all would be reconciled, knowne, and honoured all. Is it against the Scripture that rhe Sonne was humbled, and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost? Why then should the exaltation terminated in the person of the Son, and not of the Father, nor of the Holy Ghost be against the Scriptures? This advancing of Iesus doth shew that our salvation consulted by the three Persons, and undertaken onely by the second, is equally to the glory of all. The doctrine is frequent in the new Testament, and the more the more desperate your opposition. 'Tis not the saying, that God ex­cepted himselfe when all things are subjected unto Jesus, or that at 1 Pet. 3.21. Psal. 87.27. &c. Jesus is advanced over creatures onely, will exeme him from the high sublimation, wherein the glory of the blessed Trinity is; and no where else refulgent. The Father not subjecting declares equality, and the Sons eminency [Page 10] his Fathers excellency. He and the Father are one. See my Anti­teich. Tract. 9. Pag. 87.88. &c.

Did I now maintaine the opinion that you perswade the world I am in, your ten arguments would be too senselesse to evict me. How I stand, my Antiteich. declares. And once againe I protest, that if it be superstition to honour our Saviour in the sense of his Name, I will, by the grace of God, contend to be so supersti­tious still.

But here, I pray, tell me, who are they that doe extoll the bare Name? Not the Protestants I am sure, nor the Rhemists; men in the Moone perhaps; or else 'tis a Chimaera of your owne braine. What is Christs, should ever be handled with respect: His Name therefore; for that is his, and may not be separated from him.

Answer.

Your transition unto the positive Thesis hath at the words (see­ing then &c.) an epilogue of what you have shewed: and what have you? Even the reedes that Mydas Barber filled full of words. The Name above every Name may, for ought you have said, be a bare Name, and so honoured. And because you cannot prove any thing against your supposall, permit, I pray, our brethren to give the Name a sense, and Worship too, as the Name of Iesus. That you will a man would thinke; For now you understand it of supereminent glory, and have reasons store for what you understand.

Answer.

Nihil occultum te latet, behold, what Eagles eyes have you got?

(It is no way contrary to the analogy of faith so to understand it. Therefore it is so. Your reason is, because Name is used for glory, Gen. 11.4.)

The sight is very dim that will be darkned with such a mist. By the same argument it may be the worship, or service of God. For so, [...], Name signifieth. Mat. 28.19. If you stand to this, this is as strong against, as for you. But it comes againe with fresh supply at thirdly, and fourthly, and will be discussed then.

Answer.

At secondly you bring no more then I give you, viz. that Name is [...], and stil the analogy is as proper for our sense as evident for yours. For though [...] and [...] Name, and the Name be [...], the Lord; yet [...] the Name pronounced is no lesse among the Hebrewes, nor ever otherwise in any other dialect.

Answer.

Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi, Tertul. Valent. Truth feares nothing more, then not to be in publike. Abscondat se serpens quantum potest, yet me thinkes your over-sight at thirdly and fourthly should make you blush. This is it. Having at first understood the Name a­bove every Name to be the supereminent power, and glory of Christ, here you say, tis more agreeable to the Text so to read it then o­therwise. [Page 12] For first and secondly, or if you will avoyd the tautolo­gy, let both your reasons be this one.

A great Name doth every where signifie the great glory and dignity of the person.

To grant this is to vanquish you. If it signifie the glory, and the dignity, then tis not the glory, and the dignity. For Signum non est signatum, the signe is not the thing signified.

Answer.

Must it so be understood, and not for the Name Jesus? And is that your reason, because power and glory is the gift which God gave Christ? Mat. 28, 18. 1 Pet. 1.21.

'Tis true, power there and glorie are given unto him: but pow­er and glory are not the Name given him; though his Name bee the Name of power and glory. Your Minor therefore is false; for if the gift be power and glory, the Apostle doth Idem per idem a­gere, and the exaltation of the person and Name must be both one. Or if the gift be power and glory, I would gladly know whether created, or increated? Created it cannot be, and be a Name above every Name. If increated, tis Arrianisme to say it was then given him.

To escape this Dilemma you have no way save with the Fathers, and with us, to confesse that given there is manifested. His Name was declared to be the Name of power and glory, that every knee might bow, and every tongue confesse, that Iesus Christ is Lord. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 14.15. &c. and the Syllo­gisme will be thus:

The Name ever which is highest advanced, is the Name above e­very Name.

But the Name of Iesus is the Name highest advanced.

Ergo The Name of Iesus is the Name above every Name.

The Major and Minor are in the Text Phil. 2.9.10.11.

What will you doe? here's nothing for you to act, save the Colier, and that you may in denying the conclusion.

Answer.

Fifthly, you reason from the humiliation to the exaltation; and because your fancie vanisheth, without taking from; or adding to the Text, the Name of Iesus is denyed to be humbled, lest it should prove exalted. You doe well in observing [...], but you might have done better in joyning [...]. For, wherefore also doth demonstrate what you care not to see, viz. That he whose [Page 14] Person was so aviled, and his Name put out by an accursed death, is superexalted in both; and in both, by the union, and for our sal­vation. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1. pag. 4.5. &c.

You have a great deale of the humiliation here, and goe a great deale further then you should. For I cannot finde, where Christ veiling his glory ever departed from it; nor can you prove it, without being an Heretike.

A Person there is humbled, and, in your way, declared how. I will but aske a question or two, and you shall be condemned from your owne mouth. Who was the Person so humbled? you must answer, the Sonne of God, made man. What was his Name? you answer, Phil. 2.6.10. his Name is Jesus. Then Iesus was the Name so humbled, and by consequence the Name so exalted. For, from the humiliation the argument is good unto the exaltation. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 16, 17. &c.

Answer.

The Minor of your imperfect Syllogisme is not ad idem secundum idem, unlesse you intend that Christ in his humiliation suffered in the Name of his glory; but if it be as you have taken it hitherto, exclusivè, it is false: Nor are you, nor all your Helps, by all their Sophistry, able to justifie it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.16. &c. and the Syllogisme will be thus.

Whatsoever was the Name most abased, that is the Name above every Name exalted.

But the Name of Iesus is the Name which was most abased:

Ergo, the Name of Jesus is the Name above every Name ex­alted.

The Major and the Minor are in the Text, Phil. 2. I know for whose sake you will not denie the inference: and be it knowne also, that you have brought nothing in the negative part of this Section, save falsa supposita; nor other then [...], and those very dangerous in the affirmative. Our assertion therefore is still good.

The Name of Jesus, or the Name Jesus, in the sense of the Name, is the powerfull and glorious Name, or the Name of Power and Glory, super quod non est super, above which, there is nothing above.

Answer.

Here you shew an Aesculapian temper; though you have read much, yet your great Reading will submit to better: but your Mercuriall wit hath mangonized a Gigantean fury with an humble hue. For by whom you pretend to be guided, you looke on with a sinister eye, and oppose them with all your might.

Let me premise that by Names in your first line must be un­derstood every Name under [...], above. V. 9. or else the questi­on is changed. This done, your argument stands thus.

The Kingdome of Christ in this Text is not onely of Media­tourship, but naturall also. Therefore every Name must be referd to all creatures without exception.

The antecedent is false. For though they seclude not one the other, as, opposita, yet when the Oecumenicall is spok [...]n of, the essentiall is not intended. For th [...] Naturall is Christ [...] [...] Son of God: the personall his secundum [...] [...] [...]y dispen­sation [Page 17] onely, as he is [...], God and Man. This the Apostle minds and the administration of this here, and hereafter. This is it at the three paralell places, Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. Phil. 2.10. as the ancient and moderne Divines, heeding the context, have ne­cessarily inferd. See my Antit. Tract. 6. pag. 53. &c.

The Texts are very quiet among themselves, if you could per­mit them their senses. They doe not all which you have cited, speake of the Naturall Kingdome onely: But if they did, may not Phil. 2.10. be understood of the Personall? Doth not the A­postle here say, that every knee and every tongue shall confesse that Iesus is Lord, or made Heire of all things, as to the Hebrewes he writeth, Heb. 1.2. How made? He ever was Heire, and never not Heire as the Sonne of God. Made then he was, gratia dispen­sationis, and by the Vnion as God and Man. As then the Church is in the Common-weale, yet is not the Common-weale; so here this Personall Kingdome is within the Naturall, yet not the Natu­rall; and as in the one, so in the other; what is spoken of the one, is not of the other.

Your forcing of severall Texts, to force on this Text the sense of the Naturall Kingdome, makes me feare you are enclining to Eutychisme: Not distinguishing how Christ hath any thing in a singular manner, you apprehend all things his by nature onely, and according to humane nature also, in your first and second proofe. Indeed, Christ-man hath the essentiall Kingdome, but not as man, for then every man should have it also; and where were subjection then?

Though therefore whatsoever is in, or of one or the other Na­ture, may be spoken of the whole person, yet not otherwise then limitate, according to that nature whose proprietie it is. Christ­man hath the essentiall glory according to his Divine nature, not according to the humane; the humane nature receives of the Di­vine by grace in fruition, not by reall participation. There is no more proved at Ioh. 17. Heb. 1.2. nor more in the subsequent cita­tions, then that the Sonne of God having taken upon him in our nature a personall Kingdome, holds still his naturall. And so much doth M. Calvin, Calvin. in Heb. whom you urge, say at Heb. 1.2. and not more at Phil. 2.9.10. Whether the Fathers determine it so, or no, you may [...]ee in my Antiteichisma.

I might now passe unto your third Section, had you not insinu­ated [...], every Name, to be all creatures onely.

With what intent looked you on the Text? Minded you to pervert it, that you might miscarry others? Or did your [...] deceive your sense? Shore up your eyes, and trie whether you can discerne a Colon, or no, at [...], every Name? Can you not, and yet see to make a Comma there, and another at shall bow? Is not this to adde and diminish? Strive whilest you will, your owne snare hath caught, and shall hold you, till your heart have cryed your Pen mercie. Shall I be plaine with you? you have ta­ken this of a very false hand: for I am perswaded, that your vaunt of knowledge cannot be ignorant,Isid. Orig. l. 1▪ c. 18. that Colon is membrum quod intel­lectum sensui praestat. The understanding then being satisfied at the Name in the Colon, goes not to the next for that it hath, but for more: Namely for the duty, that the Name having full regard, God who gave the Name may have his full glory. For this pur­pose are Commas, Colons, and Periods kept, that there being no confusion in oratione, there may be no distortion in sensu.

I have beene bold, and will be more. This you say, God hath given Christ a Name which is above every Name (here you give a loose, and take part of the next verse) of things in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth; and so leave the rest, that at the Name of Iesus every Knee should bow, to a Colon by it selfe.

If you have no better course to expresse the meaning of the Holy Ghost, the world will soone know, judge, and conclude, that M. Gyles being very lame, hath deserted the question. Who desire more, may see my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 17. 18. 19. 20. &c. and the Syllogisme will be this.

That Name ever, above which there is no other Name of God, is the Name above every Name.

But the Name of Jesus is that Name above which there is no o­ther Name of God.

Ergo, The Name of Jesus is the Name above every Name.

The Major is undenyable, the Minor is in the Text plainly de­monstrated in my Antiteich. and is alwayes intended de nominibus, non de modis rei, not that the relation Son of God, as a Son, is a grea­ter Name then God the Father, as Father; but of all the Names of God, the Name of Jesus is the greatest signifying Name of [Page 19] might poured forth in mercy.

Jesu, per Nomen tuum dulce, fac mihi secundum nomen tuum. Aug. de con­trit. cord. c. 5.

Answer.

I feare not, but the weight of your reasons will shew your ar­guments light. The first and second hold nothing. The first is this, if bowing the knee be not here taken literally, it is not con­trary to the analogy of faith. To this your second must come, or I, gone thither, shall have no appetite to returne unto the first. Recocta crambe fastidium parit. First then, and Secondly, if you be right, there is no [...] in making the knees, and bowing in the Text Phil. 2.10 metaphoricall. Is there not? No more then is there at the second Commandement; nor Psal. 95.6. nor Isa. 45.23. nor Rom. 14 11. nor Ephes. 3.14. nor any where. Because Knees and bowing are somewhere figurative, as Psal. 44.25. Hab. 3.6. Ezech. 7.17. they shall be no where proper. Hell is some­times taken metaphorically for the grave, therefore there is pro­perly no hell: and could you make it good, that because God in Scripture is sometimes attributed, [...], to Idols; some­times, [...], unto Magistrates; therefore there is no true God, you might safely be as great a Libertine as any.

Answer.

Most of the creatures, which here must bow, have no proper Knees to bow. Ergo, &c. Prove the antecedent if you can. What if Angels, and devills have no Knees, yet most of the creatures, which are reasonable to accompt, have. I know you will not say, yet if you should you cannot justifie, that there are more Angels good, and bad, then men elect and reprobate. The Speech then may be proper in the greater number, which yet is analogicall in the lesse. But may not Angels have their Knees, as well as their tongues, as their faces? Tongues they have, 1 Cor. 13.1. faces they have, Rev. 7.11. and Knees too, [...], they stood, they fell downe, standing, falling insinuate Knees, and if we adde two words more, [...], and [...], they adored, they spake, we have full proofe of their outward expressions, Rev. 7.11.12. and that's enough for those that can be satisfied with reason. All insensitive creatures, as Stars, Clouds, Vegetables, &c. in your Kalender, are without the Apostles Scope, as not having any faculty to this reasonable service of God: See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. pag. 53. &c.

The Major and Minor in your Syllogisme are both false. Gigni de nihilio nihilum, Pers. Sat. 3. of nothing nothing's got.

Answer.

What's there, is little to the purpose. Ʋnde habeas, quaerit nemo.

If some have said, I doe, that Angels have [...], to our Knees. They have no Knees visibly corporall, as ours are, yet invisi­bly corporall they have in analogie to ours. Your Simile therfore of a great King, &c. argues no want of wisedome, or injustice in God, but presumption in you: that not knowing the reason of all things dare so argue; and contempt in you, that have Knees, and will not bow. For the creatures which God hath bound to this duty, have potentium obedientialem for the performance. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6.

Answer.

What you cannot prove not to be, you will to be something. For Gen. 27.29. bowing is subjection, so is it Prov. 14.19. so is Kissing, Psal. 2.12. so 1 Cor. 15.27. Heb. 2.8. Eph. 1.22. all things are subject unto Christ.

Hoc est, quod palles? Did the studie for this make you pale? And did it make Master William Prynne a worthy and famous Confessor too? I have knowne men at losse by their paines; if you are consci­ous, be more carefull, or no more publike.

I have in earnest searched all your quoted places, and finde not the Hebrew word [...] at Isay 45.23. or Psal. 95.6. nor [...], at Rom. 14.11. or Eph. 3.14. or Phil. 2.10. used in any of these places. And I affirme, that [...] inferres such a bowing as yeelds an outward expression, and that [...] doth intimate no other: nor doth Master Gurnay, in your citation, gaine-say this. Your Crack of the most judicious primitive Fathers is but a Crack. See my Antiteich. Tract. 5. and cry out upon your Creditors.

Answer.

Secondly, to uphold your Utopicall subjection, by the confession of the Tongue, may not be meant a literall and vocall confession of that member: And why? Doth not the Apostle say, that with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, Rom. 10.10. The Heart and Tongue, Soule and Body, make a full subjection. The very Angels have their out­ward expressions, and we must have ours, or else God hath not all his.

What you urge at Rev. 5.10.11.12. is strong against you: but you finde a Prosopopaeia in the 13. verse, and that Psal. 19. and 103. all mute creatures are induced, speaking the prayse of God; there­fore the reasonable must be tongue-tyed. A non esse ad esse non valet argumentu [...]: But if your conclusion be, therefore the reaso­nable must suo modo confesse, as the irrationall doe their way; then [Page 24] as they with all their might, we doe with ours, not only inwardly yeeld, but outwardly also, by Tongue and Knee, &c. shew forth our obedience. This you ought to mind, or in your generall acception of subjection you contradict your selfe: for all the Vertues ap­peare not, if any Knee or Tongue be excepted. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. pag. 28. & Tract. 5. pag. 43. 44. &c. and the Syllogisme will be this:

Whatsoever bowing is expressely required in the Text, ought to be performed by every creature injoyned it.

But corporall bowing is expressely required in the Text.

Therefore corporall bowing ought to be performed by every creature inioyned it.

The Maior and the Minor are in the Text, and you in your subjection generall and generall confession yeeld as much. Doe what you can, you can but obscure the truth, [...], to the ignorant people. Others finde, before they seeke you, and will shame you, unlesse your timely recantation be more fortunate then your miserable Art.

Answer.

The Bowers, say you, at the Name Jesus, to make their opinion and practise good, doe understand in the Name of Iesus, to be at the mention of the Name Iesus. But I inferre, that this interpreta­tion is senselesse, and absurd.

So doe I, and having done, need say no more. But I must tell you, that the Devill is a lyar, cunning, and obstinate. Doe we, your derided Bowers, bow at the naked Name Iesus? Doe we interpret the Text at the mentioning of the Name Iesus? How often have you heard of this false suppositum? Even so often, that I could ea­sily have beleeved your head before this time had beene purged with Helebore, your braine crammed with more wit, and your minde with conscientious notions. But I see what colour you [Page 26] have lost, and wish that none else might see wherewith you are intinct.

Yet my good will to you may not endanger me for your Vizard: Looke to it, I have alreadie loosed it, and when this string is unty­ed, it will drop off.

First, you say this phrase Name of Jesus is never taken for the Name Jesus. Here is petitio principii, and where before you said it, 'tis answered before, Sect. 1.

Secondly, in the Name of Jesus can never be taken for the men­tion of the Name Jesus. You must put in and out what you please, or will be pleased with nothing. In your phrase is [...], which permitted will delude. At the mention of Iesus say we, and so it is ad idem secundum idem.

Hither comes your thirdly, where is idem per idem, a meere dila­tation of the second. It is never, &c. that is, it is no where in the Old and New Testament so taken, was your sense before, and it is no other here.

But will you yeeld, if I take from you your owne Weapons? Psal. 118.10. All Nations compassed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them. What is your sense here? Even, that it is wilde to say, at the naming of the Lord I will destroy them. Were you well when you printed this? Can there be intended mo [...]e by in the Name of the Lord, then the bringing of the Lord in medium, into the middest, as Master Calvin Calvin in loc. saith, betweene himselfe and his enemies? And is there any other way to doe that, then by the faithfull mentioning of his Name? Your ancient hold is downe, and your new falling to the ground.

At Act. 9.29. Saul spake boldly in the Name of the Lord Iesus s you hold it infinitely absurd to say, that he spake boldly at the naming of the Lord Iesus. Is this absurd, and infinitely? We all know, that Saint Paul was a zealous Professor; and might he be stout in pro­fessing Christ, and not bold at the mentioning or naming of Iesus? He is very stoutly preached, whom we feare to name. Where is this great Challenger? Were Anteus he, he should never rise againe.

Places are frequent in the Bible to maintaine this: The third Commandement admits it: For there we are injoyned not to mention Iehovah in vaine, if Expositors may be credited. The [Page 27] Name of the Lord may not be heard, written, spoken, any way handled, without due respect. Joh. 16.23. Whatsoever ye shall aske of the Father in my Name, that is, by faith mentioning me as the Mediator, he shall give you. Act. 5.40. not to speake in the Name of Iesus, is, not to make mention of Iesus, either by Preaching, or otherwise, to his glory. At our invocation, even the Name of Jesus is a faithfull naming, or mentioning of him, not inwardly alwayes, but by heart and tongue also at times unto God, Eph. 5.20. &c.

No Christian ever denyed this, and yet this with you is wilde, absurd, ridiculous, quicquid tibi suggesserit splendida bilis, what your humour pleaseth. When the Dog-dayes be past, a time may be found to purge you of this Choler; the while, your Neighing and Wincing gets nothing but Spur-gaules. And let that serve for your eight frothie Lines, of our building on the loose sand of vaine opinions.

What you desire next, is shewed before, that one sense of in the Name of Iesus, is in analogie to other Texts.

The signification of [...], though questionable, you grant to be at: who doubt it, may see my Antit. Tract. 4. p. 29. 30. where [...], is declared by [...], and in the Name of Jesus is as much, as in the naming of him, or when he is named. And this periphrasis is usuall in the old and new Testa­ment. Gen. 1.1. In the beginning, is when the beginning was. 1 Thess. 3.13. In the comming of our Lord, is when hee com­meth.

Your sense I grant to be true, viz. That every knee shall bow to Christ, and unto his glory, if you exclude not the literall. For be­side bowing to the Person, and in glory of the Person, terminus a quo, the whereat, or bowing at the Name is expressed. See my Antiteich.

Nor is there lesse to be minded in the words of the Prophet, Psal. 63.4. I will lift up my hands in thy Name; that is, when I call upon thee, at thy Name unto thee will I lift up my hands. At the hearing of a Voice, we find the Disciples fell on their faces, Mat. 17.6. And of Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. the Text at Phil. 2.10. is the full exposition. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. there it is resolved, and the Syllogisme is this.

The literall sense, not against, nor beside, but in the analogie of the truth is to be observed.

But the bowing at the Name, or mention of Jesus, is the lite­rall sense, not against, nor beside, but in the analogy of truth.

Ergo, The bowing at the Name, or mention of Jesus, is to be observed.

The Major is a perpetuall canon; the Minor out of your owne Quotations is demonstrated before. And for helping me where you endeavoured to wound me most, I remember you of a short sentence in Isocrates, Isocrat. Ora. ad Demon. [...].

Answer.

In the fifth Section, having undertaken to give us the mea­ning of the Text, you desire judgement, and let it passe.

You say our Lord Iesus Christ, being in the forme of God, &c. layd downe his Name and dignity; and received a Name beneath all Names.

I challenge you in these words: For though it be true that hee vailed his glory, yet he layd not downe his Name: What he ever was, he remained still the Son of God. Nor did he receive a Name beneath all Names, though he and it were by sinners handled beneath all degrees of basenesse.

You goe on thus; Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave him a Name above every Name, that is, glory above every creature.

Here you dealt not fairely with your Reader, you say the Name given is glory, must not then the Name under super above, be glory too, and the sense thus? He hath given him, [...], glory above all glory. If you look into S. Chrysostome, Chrysost, in Loc. Phil. 2. greater Schollers then your selfe kept that analogie. Nor doe the Learned, except the Arrians, make glory a Name which Christ had not before; but say, God then did set out his glory in the highest, that Jesus, which was a Name of scorne among men, might be the highest Name in Power and glory. Nay, Power and glory are the essentiall vertues of his Person, but the Name gi­ven him, or illustrated his, must denote who, and what the Person is.

It followes, that all creatures should subject themselves wil­lingly or unwillingly with all their abilities, to Iesus Christ thus gloryfied, and expresse, that Iesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father.

Here you enlarge the Text and shorten it. For first, all crea­tures are not capable of this adoration. Secondly, you obscure by generalls, what the Apostle expresseth in particulars. Not deny­ing geniculation, nor open confession, you wrap them up in the vertues to be expressed by creatures. Thirdly, not subscribing to the manner and time of the duty, you make [...] at the Name redundant. As if you were now afraid to let the people know, that when the wind shall turne, you will maintaine out­ward worship and and open confession lawfull and necessary.

The observation that [...] is often used for [...], is true, and what I say of it, is in my Antiteich. Tract. 9. Pag. 87.

Your shewing also, how Christs being in the glory, doth an­swer to his being in the forme of a Servant, is very good. I will onely tell you, what I said before (Sect. 1. at the last fourthly) you would come to; even to confesse that, Given, is manifested, that the Name above every Name, is the Name of Power and glory; and so you have in plaine termes, viz. But now being exalted, hee shall be manifested to be Lord in the glory of God the Father, which shall be fully at last, when he shall appeare in his glorious Name of power and glory.

There is first a manifesting of what he had, no giving of that he had not. Secondly his Name is of Power and glory: Power and glory is not his Name. And of this opinion are the Divines, ancient and moderne, which you have named, and others, see my Antiteich. Tract. 3. Pag. 15. 16. &c.

Answer.

Having done your exposition, you give it this glosse. It is full easie cleare.

You might have said, short, hard, doubtfull: Short, chopping off the visible part of Gods Worship; Hard, making th [...] whole Text figurative; Doubtfull, not onely contradicting what you said before, but opposing axiomes in divinity also, and bringing in those creatures that come not within the compasse of the pre­cept. Were your mind right, your meaning would be [...], uniforme, and not involved.

To make all sure, you insinuate into the Reader, that our in­terpretation [Page 31] is rugged, not agreeable to the scope of the Text, nor sense of other correspondent Scriptures.

One said, men are most like unto God, cum vera loquuntur, Sphinx Theolog. Phil. c. 24. when they speake the truth; though he were an Ethnick, Pythagoras spake like a Christian.

Take it not ill, I say you here degenerate from your common profession, though not from Puritanisme. Doe not you know, that the literall is the plaine and even sense? How then can ours be rugged? Yours are conscious; and in my Antiteichisma, who will reade, may see that ours goes home with every tittle: where then failes it in the Scope? And you have beene taught the correspondence with other Texts: why then is it private, or si [...]gular?

The summe of our Tenet is this: The Lord Jesus, by the Vnion, and for our Salvation, was humbled; wherefore also God super-exalted him, and set out the Name of Jesus above every Name: that for the Vnion, and for our Salvation, every rationall creature should bow at the Name of Jesus, and every tongue confesse, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Is this it you tearme absurd and senselesse? A good Souldior will not forsake his Hold, for the barking of a Dog; nor a true Christian desert the truth, for the scoffe of a Separatist.

You disdaine, that the Name of Iesus should be the Name above every Name: Is not this Semi-Arrian-Socinianisme? Were you throughly sifted, would it not be found among your Traditions of Puritie, that Christ suffered meerely to confirme his Doctrine; and wee, righteous onely in the imitation of him, shall for our owne workes be exalted into glory? What is the Name, and that it can be no other then the Name of Iesus, is at large in my Antiteichisma.

Next, you charge us for maintaining, that at the mentioning of Iesus in the Church, at the time of Prayer, or Preaching, all things in Heaven, and in Earth, and under the Earth, should bow corporall knees.

This was hammered at your owne Anvill. Wee'le admlt your sense so farre as it may concerne us; we in our times and places, the other in theirs: And that we are limitted by the Church, is no injurie to the Text, Doctor Page, if you would remember, [Page 32] taught you this by a Rule of the Schooles;D. Pag. Iustificat. of bowing. Pag. 11. ‘That affirmative Precepts, though they alwayes bind from doing the contrarie, yet doe not bind us to all times, and to all occasions.’

‘So for Prayer and Fasting, the Scripture leaveth them at large, and for Prayer, doth seeme to bind us to it alwayes. For Saint Paul saith, Pray continually, 1 Thess. 5.17. which is well ex­pounded, not of every time, but of every opportunitie. If then wee may truly and justly limit a substantiall dutie of Gods ser­vice to some certaine times, though the Text seeme to enjoyne it at all times, much more may we limit a circumstantiall dutie belonging unto God, especially when the Text leaves it more at large.’ At all times be the Name used reverently, but in our devotions, private and publike, we are strictly tyed. Adde this; the day of the Resurrection is the day which the Lord hath made, and every seventh day after is the day we sanctifie in re­membrance of it: Whose Person therefore and Name God on that day highly exalted, we on that day and the other shew the superexaltation of his Name and Person.

Answer.

Now you seeme to shew how absurd we are, by opposing your owne opinion to our expression.

First, if Name above every Name be Power and Glory, it is evident what Name it is that God gave unto Christ, viz. the Name of Power and Glory.

You heard before, that the Name cannot be Power and Glory. Secondly, the consequence is naught, Notum per ignotius, it makes the plaine obscure. Thirdly, you contradict your first minde, Sect. 1. in that you expresse the Name which God gave Christ to be the Name of Power and Glory. For, if it be the Name of Power and Glory, Iesus is it, whose Vertue the Power is, or else you doe [...].

But to understand Name for a proper Name, it is not, you say, manifested what it is, &c.

No? Read the Text, and in the tenth Verse it is the Name of Iesus. Nor is it absurd to hold, that God gave his Sonne that Name at his Exaltation, when he received it at his Circumcision: For, the giving of the Name is the manifesting and declaring of the Name, as before; and you have so expounded it in this Section.

Nor doth this make God to dally with his Sonne, to give, and take, and give againe, unlesse you will denie the gracious dispen­sation of the Lord. But for your prophane boldnesse with God and his Word, I will not dally with you.

Your reason of your affirmation is, in your owne words, this: For it is plaine, if he had it now given him, it was not then in his owne possession. You cannot avoid Arrianisme, take it how you will: If of the Name of Iesus, then by your saying, Christ was not Iesus before the Exaltation; if of Power and Glory, then Power and Glory was not in his possession before. Take heed, you know whose bowels the impetuous blasts thrust forth.

Answer.

In your sense, there is nothing at all shewed. Not Bowing: for, as you have handled it, it is an invisible any, or every thing, [Page 34] a generall yeelding without expression. Not the Time: for how know we when to bow, if the power be not signified by some Name, or signe. Not the Person: for he is out of our sight.

But to bow at the mention of Jesus; not, as you would, to the bare Name Iesus, notes the Time, when Iesus is named; poynts out the Person, at the Name of Iesus; and declares the subjection full; outward and inward. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. and 5.

Answer.

Here you are aviated, and say you know not what. What? doe we neither respect his Name, nor his Person? Are we Jewes, thinke you, to bow the Knee in derision of him? Or were not you of Protagoras sect, when in derision of our bowing at the Name, you told some of your Parishiones how the boy that was whipped cryed out Iesus, and made his Master kisse his posteri­ours.

The defacing of the Image is the disgracing of the Prince: and the mocking of the Christian is the scorning of Christ. Irrisor non poenitens! Lycurgus King of Thracia, despising Bacchus, chopt his leg asunder, as he lopt his Vine. Take this till more comes.

Now I may tell you that we make not the Name a cypher. For in the Name we behold the circle of perfection, in it a Unit, in that Unit three angules, and in the middle two natures, and of these but one Person, Jesus Christ.

Nor yet a meere Watch-word. Indeed the naming gives notice that it is our time, but the Name carries us in our adoration unto [Page 35] his Person. The Name hath regard, and the Person the duty. In the sense of his Name, no otherwise doe we honour him.

And so doth Bishop Andrewes▪ the Oracle of his time, not of this opinion, as you terme him, understand it. But suppose he had beene the first in it, I should rather confide in his judgement, then in Mr. Prin, Mr. Burton, Mr. Gyles, and all the Arrians, Socini­ans, Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists in the Kingdome. Nor can you perswade the world that bowing at the Name we mind not the Person. Nor are you able to prove that in this way of worship there can be Idolatry, unlesse the Disciples were Idola­trous when they fell on their faces and worshipped at the hea­ring of a Voice. Mat. 17.6.

Answer.

What Bishop Babington B. Babing. upon the 2 Cōman. p. 20. saith, you meant not your Reader should see. Had you named in which Worke of his, I might have found it. But in his Workes Printed, 1637. in Folio, there is no such thing as concomitancy to be found in any 245. Page. Whe­ther it be among his Questions and Answers upon the Second Commandement I know not, nor had I time to search. There it is most likely, and what he produceth there of Idolaters excu­sing their Idolatry, by saying they worship not the Image, but God in and under the Image, is nothing against us. For here is no Image graven, or that can be pensilled, unlesse you can, as Sir Edward Deering Sir E. Deer. Sect. 11. p. 86. spake, bring the object of one sense to fall under [Page 36] the distinguishment of another. When I see a voice, or a sound pictured, I shall be of your mind.

We goe no otherwise by the sound unto our Saviour, then by the hearing of the Word unto God. If we may worship God in his Word, why may we not honour Iesus in his Name?

Bishop Babington B. Babing. on 2. Arti, p. 196. whatsoever you say, sayes nothing against this sense, where he reproveth the superstitious use of the literall word Iesus.

Doctor Whitakers denyes not this reverence at the Name of Ie­sus, but would have it done to the Name of God, and Christ al­so, saith Doctor Page. D. Page Iustifi [...] of how. p. 22.

And here againe let me put you in mind of your altering the Text. If the Reader observe it well he may prognosticate the downefall of your edifice. For at the foundation, and throughout the building, you turne the genitive case in the Text, into the case of the Name, and read it, at the Name Iesus. Thus you have play­ed the Juggler, stole the sense from the Name, beguiled the peo­ple, and put the theft impudently upon our Church.

I have beene large in answering your exposition, that when I shall hereafter labour to be briefe, I may not be obscure to the Reader. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the Syllo­gisme will be this.

Where the face of the Text which literally is in analogie of the truth is most changed, there is most probability of errour.

But in interpreting the Name above every Name, Power and glory; at the Name of Iesus, to the power of Iesus; and bowing of the Knee, to be vertuall, the face of the Text, which literally is in analogy to the truth, is most changed.

Ergo. In that interpretation there it most probability of er­rour.

The Major is according to the rules of interpretation; the Mi­nor is before demonstrated.

And here let me conclude that you have not confer'd your un­dertakings and your strength,Senec. de Jran. c. 5. Oprimat onus ferente majus.

Answer.

Your Major is false; must an obscure Text be warranted by Scripture speaking of the same, or in the same phrase? Suppose there be no more Texts of the same; may it not be knowne by ex­amining it by the morall truth? What else intends the Apostle, Rom. 12.6. which you have induced for your selfe? If any Prophesie, let him Prophesie according to the proportion of Faith. [Page 38] In the Greeke it is [...], which some ren­der the measure, others the rule of faith.

In the one the Apostle meeteth with the fault of these times: He would not have one man seeme to know all things, but every one to keepe within his proportion.

In the other sense he teacheth the perfect canon of interpreting, viz. that examination bee made, ad Christianae fidei axiomata [...],Bez. in An­not. according to the axiomes of the Christian faith, which of themselves are to be beleeved.

And what other rule doth Saint Peter 2 Epistle 1.20. prescribe? Were they, the first, and this, observed your Enthusiasmes would not have broken forth among so many to helpe breake the peace of the Church.

But will Zanchius allow your assertion? His second rule is, Ʋt obscurae Scripturae per clariores interpretemur, that we should in­terpret the obscure by the more cleare. Or will Saint Augustine, in saying one place may not disagree with many other, confirme your proposition? Nay, and that you have urged, makes against your selfe. Your Authors will have the hard explained by the more easie, if more there be; if not, by the analogy of the uni­versall faith.

Your Minor is refelled in your former Section, and in my Antiteichisma.

In your conclusion is [...], and because you there shew your Sophistry in such profane language, let your patience know that the Hebrew Proverb,Drus. ad lit. Vav. [...], Vae malo, & vae illis qui adhaerent ei, secludes not you.

Answer.

Your Major is true if by every creature you understand angels, men, and devills, as the Fathers have expounded it. See my Antiteichisma.

But if you intend it of all rationalls, sensitives, vegetatives, insects, mineralls, all whatsoever, you bring in more then comes within the scope of the Apostles doctrine.

The Texts you urge for proofe, were cited to the same, and to as little purpose before. Sect. 3. Where I declared that the He­brew word, at Isa. 45.23. and the Greeke, at Rom. 14.11. Phil. 2.10. for bowing, are not in these Texts. And my Answer is, that if in your citations an universall subjection be expres­sed, in the three paralell places a speciall duty is injoyned. I said, that if, for I question your sense very much of Heb. 1.2. Because Saint Chrysostome Chrysost. in Heb. 1.2. interprets [...], of all Nations, But be it as you will, you are answered, till it is proved that bow­ing at Phil. 2.10. is not a signe of our reasonable submission.

Your method is distorted; for you have brought the rest to the Major, which might have beene an anticipation at the Mi­nor. Thither I goe, and there is amphibolia in the subject. You [Page 40] mind the bare Name, and we, according to the Text, the Name of Iesus. In this sense all reasonable creatures, and they onely shall performe it.

The objection you make is answered in my Antiteich. Tract. 5. pag. 47. 48. & Tract. 6. pag. 58.

But you have in the supply of your Major proposition saved the labour. You say in our behalfe, and to make way for a reply, that every one is bound to doe it, though everyone shall not doe it.

I thanke you Sir, and now give me leave to doe something, per [...] I will, for you.

Be your ambition, for your pietie, honestie, and learning, ad­vanced to a Patriarch-ship in some Terra Florida, where ignorance of evill shall doe more good then knowledge of vertue.

Our answer is, all ought to performe it, though all doe it not. The Text is a fulfilling now, but at last shall, by all voluntarily, or involuntarily be perfectly accomplished.

The [...] was your owne, and being it was, your reply is lost.

When Mercurius had deprived Typhon of his subtlety, he then lay weltring in his blood. All he could doe was to send his win­ding brood to infest those weakelings, that were newly brought forth of the Eggs, that the Eagle layd in Iupiters lap. One of them I am sure is in the next Sect. for it runs out of his very veines. See it the [...]e.

Answer.

Here is Petitio principii, a Syllogisme of the same matter, forme, and circumstance with the former. The difference onely is in words. Insteed of every creature the exegesis is fallen upon the copula, shall be performed.

I grant the Major with the limitation of the former. Your first proofe is right: And, me thinks applying Rom. 14.10.11. to this Text you should not vary from the sense of Christs oeconomicall Kingdome, which he holds by dispensation. At Heb. 2.8. 1 Cor. 15.26. Rev. 20.13. contrary to your rule of interpretation, Sect. 6. you goe from the phrase and sense of Phil. 2.10. For the question is not whether all shall be subject, but whether all of the three ranks celestiall, terrestriall, and infernall, shall, at the day of Judgement, bow the Knee, or make outward expression at the Name of Jesus?

The Texts 1 Cor. 15.25. Mat. 8.29. and the Authors D. Page citeth conclude a full subjection: But neither doth the Reve­rend Bishop, nor D. Page infer all manner of creatures sensible, and insensible, at Phil. 2.10. Your flout, of Champions, is but a flurt of your envie, and for it takes this, Omnibus invideas, invi­de nemo tibi.

Answer.

In the Minor you keepe a foot the amphibolia, the Name Jesus, for the Name of Jesus. I am sure you never read any in Print till these last times, that ever translated the Name of Jesus like you.

But what if you have not yet read any, save D. Page, who coa­steth toward, as you say, but speakes not out plainly that we shall bow at the Name of Jesus in the day of Judgement: must it not therefore be? Can you shew me any one of any antiquity, that writes against it?

You can agree with D. Page, that there is present equity of the Text; and with M. Calvin, that the Kingdome of Christ is begun, and increaseth daily, though it shall not be perfect till the last day. Is there a present equity; shall it begin here, be fulfilled here­after, and is it not a duty at the last? A perfect [...], your lucke is better then your art, if you reconcile these.

Nor doth your saying that servants shew not their subjection [Page 43] by bowing at their Masters Name, nor Wives at their hus­bands infringe the learned Doctors tenet, but makes you ridicu­lous. Is their any comparison betweene the highest Name of God, and the Name of sinfull man? Yet a good Servant will honour the Name of his Master, and a loving Wife the Name of her husband. In what high esteeme then ought his Name to be, that gave himselfe to save sinners?

But you will teach D. Page to speake to the purpose, will you? very well: yet you understand not what you speake. He said, as you expresse before, It shall be true of all knees then, but it must be verified of some knees now. You affirme that beca [...]se all crea­tures declare their subjection by bowing at the Name Jesus at the last day, accordingly wee must now witnesse our subjection. This is right to you, and not the other. Would you have all men say in Saint Egidius? Have you done any more, then put the same sense into other, and more words? See here is nothing, save, [...], the fallacie of a babbler. And your babble runs to make the more ignorant beleeve that the duty shall not be per­formed at the generall day, and therefore ought not to be regar­ded now. Yet I can tell you that faith shall not be in life eternall, yet who will come there, must beleeve here.

Answer.

Have you put it to some; who are they? But if you have, are you sure it was too hot for them? What? too hot, because they take shelter at the Text? Is not this enough, whilest it is [...], in, with the morall truth of the third Comman­dement, and our Lords first Petition? If there were no more to be said then this, this would be opprobrium negantis, and make the [Page 44] impartiall Reader imbase you for your peremptorie denyall. You have the congruence of the phrase, Sect. 4. and if you would have more, see my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 61. 62. When this is compared with that, it will be so cleare from the hazard of a dangerous paradox, that any man, save he that loves wrangling, will say you are jurgii seminator.

You thinke you shall disprove it: doe, if you can, and when you cannot, let your excellencie be seene in petulant denying most.

Answer.

Is there no Scripture for it? No? Is Phil. 2.10. no Scripture? And are there not many Texts in congruitie with it? See 2 Thess. 1.10.12. where it is said, That in the Day of Judgement the Name of our Lord Jesus shall be glorified in us, and wee in him. All Expositors understand, Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. of the generall Day too: and in both those places, the very same word is used; in the first, by the Septuagint; in the second, by the Apostle, which is here. But if there were no other Text for it, can any be pro­duced against it? Any, or nigh so cleare, as there are many for it? If there be, I will yeeld all.

Answer.

Is this a Disproofe? a Demand rather. Be it what you will: it seemes you are ignorant, and would be informed. Reade the 11. Verse of Phil. 2. and there it is plaine, that every tongue shall confesse, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. That is the end, and there is open confession, I'le warrant. For the word is [...], and signifies speaking out. See my [Page 45] Antiteich. Tract. 7. & Tract. 9. That's the utmost end, and the other is in respect of our selves; because there is no other Name wherein we are saved, Act. 4.12.

Your argument, That Christ shall come as Lord to all, there­fore not as Iesus, is very false; and the simple people are abused by your misapplying the Text, Mat. 25.37.44. For, who is Lord, save Jesus? And Jesus, being the Saviour of us, is the con­founding Jesus of his and our enemies.

Answer.

You are very childishly absurd in your asseveration. We are not of those Heretikes, to whom, as Saint Chrysostome sayes, the bowing of the knee was [...], the full glory of Christs King­dome. This is of, not all the perfection it hath.

Answer.

The Reverend and learned Bishop Andrewet is the late fur­therer, if you please, no late Father of the corporall bowing at [Page 46] the Name of Iesus. He gives a reason why, at the Name; because his Person is out of our sight, that we respecting his Name, might shew our high esteeme of him.

Doth it therefore follow, that when Christ appeares he shall be without a Name, or his Name not acknowledged his? By the same argument, all his Attributes of chiefe Glory shall be taken from him. You found the same inconsequence in it, or else would have prosecuted it, as you use, where a Sophister may hide himselfe.

Another you have, and this is it: If the Bishops reason be good, then Christ shall send out his Name at that Day to be bowed at, and not come himselfe in person; or if he come in per­son, he must leave his Name behind him.

What Chymicall non-sense is here? More worthy of the hisse, then a Pen. He shall neither send his Name from himselfe, nor come himselfe without his Name. Hee calls himselfe by that Name now he is in glory, Act. 9.5. Rev. 22.16. and with that Name will come in judgement. For, the Day is the revelation of the Lord Iesus, 2 Thess. 1.7.

In your third absurditie, you abuse the Reverend Bishops phrase, applying the word reach to worship, which he applyeth to the sight. And the answer is, Christs person is out of the reach of our sight, not out of the reach of our worship.

M. T. Cic. pro L. Cor,What advantage you have of the Learned, I pray hold: Est huius seculi labes quaedam, & macula virtuti invidere; and it is your infirmitie, or deformitie, to envie his worth.

Answer.

Names are metaphoricall Images, not materiall. Being for­bidden to worship God in the likenesse of any creature by the Se­cond Commandement; we are commanded to honour him in his Name at the third.

I know not what Idolaters would doe, if the Person were in presence of the Image; but sure I am, your argument is prophane. viz. Idolaters would not bow to the Image, if the Person were in presence, therefore tis worse then Idolatry it selfe to bow at, and confesse the Name of Iesus before his face. Had you spoken thus of Jehovah before a Jew, he would have throwne a stone in your face.

Answer.

What's here was before at first; and there answered. The Holy Ghost as it pleased him expressed the duty in this Text; and so, that he who hath a will may run, and read. What need of cleerer places, when none can be more plaine. Plaine in the letter, and the letter sure in the analogy; no way dissonant, firmely groun­ded on the fudamentall truth.

Oh! It highly concernes you who have spread abroad your Papers in defiance of the Church, and against the plaine Text: It concernes you to search into your selfe; Oh search, and what by weeping you cannot doe, by publike recantation undoe what you can. It is treason to clip the Kings Coine; and is it a light matter to alter Gods? At the Name of Iesus, you have hitherto read at the Name Iesus: and like one of the children, tha [...] Bishop Babing­ton notes, playd with the word till you ha [...]e lost the sense.

Answer.

In the first, omitting the amphibolia, the Minor is false. The same was at thirdly before, and there answered. The Marginall note is a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; and being added to your conclusion, makes the fallacie there plurium interrogationum also.

In the second the Major is false, and not yet proved true, nor will be by you.

To the Minor I answer, if you understand by creatures, all sorts in the Creation, it is not required. But if you mind ratio­nall creatures onely, it is answered before, that if it be not begun it ought to be, and you confesse it is by some.

Hitherto your great labour hath thrived ill. Faber in cìppo sedet quem sua manu fecit.

Answer.

The Minor is false. Bowing at the Name of Iesus doth not in­fer an inequality of worship.

In your proofe you goe fallaciously to work. Not distinguishing the Name and the relations, or not minding one essentiall Name of the three, you insinuate, that the bowing at the Name of Iesus makes the Son more honourable then the Father.

If it were the Name of the relation we bowed at, there might be some ground for you, yet, if you would learne to consider the dispensation, not much.

Know then, that one God is the Trinity, and that this S. Tri­nity, which is one God, nec recedit a numero, nec capitur numero, neither recedes from, nor is contained by number: Not from num­ber; because the Persons are ad invicem; and in that they are in se, they are without number. So one essentiall Name pertaines to this Holy Trinity, which cannot be plurall to the three Persons. This is the determination of the Councell of Toledo. Concil. Tolet. 11.

Answer.

See now whether the answer, which I made, when you pro­pounded the question first to me▪ though suddenly given, doe, and and ever will, stand right or no?

This it was: The Sonne ought to be honoured, [...], as the Father; that is, with one and the same worship, as truly and perfectly as the Father is: and this I told you was Orthodoxe. Said I more, or said I lesse.

Your reply was then, that you would write your mind; and so after three yeares studdy in the question you have. What ere it is, a Monster it, that was so long in hatching. It seemes beautifull in the face,Horat. de or. poet. Sed turpiter atrum desinit in piscem.

You confesse, that the Persons being equall, must have an e­quall worship, and the word [...] must be there taken for the selfe same worship, outward, and inward. Because every Person is God. Whence you infer, if we be bound to honour the Sonne at his Name, we are also bound to honour the Father by bowing to his. If not the one, then not the other. For [...] is with the selfe same honour plainly.

Here is [...], you have changed the principle, and are gone from the Name to the relation. The question is not whether wee are bound to bow at the Name of the Son, that is when the Son is named, or at the Name of the Father, that is, when the Father is named: We may doe all if we please, for not being expressely commanded, tis no where forbidden.

But the question is, whether bowing at the Name of Iesus the Persons be equally honoured, or no?

You cannot prove they are not, Ile shew you how they are.

Compared ad invicem they are three, in se one. The essentiall Name, being not plurall to the three, is one and the same to every one, and all. Our worship then of any one makes no inequalitie a­mong the three, which are so one in themselves, that one cannot be another save in relation one to another. For he that honours the Son, honours the Father, and who honours not the Son, honours not the Fa­ther, as in the same verse, Ioh. 5.23. and 12.45.46.

You have therefore slandered us here egregiously, in affirming with impudencie, and non-sense enough, that we intend by [...], a truenesse of worship, not every way an equall correspon­dencie. I tell you once more, and remember it alwayes, That our not bowing at the Name of the Father, nor at the Name of the Sonne, nor at the Name of the Holy-Ghost, but at the Name of Iesus, shewes, that they, being three one to another, are but one in themselves, and that our Salvation was wrought equally by them three, though terminated onely in the Sonne. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9. p. 93.

Answer.

To that answer you reply thus: Though they cannot be di­vided, yet the Persons may be distinguished, and in their worship too, Act. 7.59. Eph. 3.14. True, they may; yea, they must be distinguished: yet Saint Stephen, calling on Christ personally, and distinctly, minds him essentially, as that God which is the blessed Trinitie. And so doth Saint Paul, bowing his knees to the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ.

But you say, that the distinct Names of each Person doe not personally denote the other Persons.

Doe they not so? Where is your Logick? Where your Meta­physicks? Have you forgot, that what a Father, as a Father is, he onely is in respect of his Sonne? So a Sonne, as a Sonne, is that he is in respect of his Father. The Father therfore cannot be concei­ved without the Sonne, nor the Sonne without the Father, nor the Holy Ghost without them both; nor any one without ano­ther: because what every one is, is in relation to one another. Yet one is not another; that is, the Father is not the Sonne, nor the Sonne the Holy Ghost. Naming then the Father, I confesse a distinction of Persons, but apprehend not the one without the other.

And here I tell you, that you, saying you doe beleeve in God the Father, and not saying you doe beleeve in God the Son, must insinuate the Sonne, or else you are a Tritheite.

Your inference next that we honouring every Person alike, at the Name of Iesus, confound the Persons, shewes that you never read, or would not heed the Orthodoxe rule of ascending the glorious Trinity by his Sonne. Who ever saw, or ever shall see the Father, save in the face of the Sonne? Ioh. 14.7.10. Heb. 1.3. And I pray, what face is next to us save his Name? The Jewes in the Name of Jehovah adored, and by the same gracious dispensation doe we at the Name of Iesus honour God.

Nor doth this make the Person of the Father in the Person of the Sonne, as you boldly argue, but declares that God, who is the blessed Trinity, will, and no way else, be worshipped accor­ding to his good pleasure in, and through Iesus Christ. Nor doth this [...], as the Fathers say, whereby the Fa­ther is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, seclude distinction, but disjunction.

In that you say every Person is in one divine essence, you seeme to be a Triformian. For if every Person were in one essence, there would be, ter una, thrice one essence: yet this is true that the whole essence is in every Person. You should therefore have said, every Person is in unity of essence.

Nor doth it therefore follow, that the Name of Iesus being proper to the Second Person, and not the Name of the first, or third, can denominate but the Second onely. For the Name is not proper to the Second Person, [...], sed per [...]. But if [Page 53] it were, doe not relations denominate ad invicem, the Father the Sonne, the Sonne the Father, the Father and the Sonne the Holy Ghost? The Name then proper to the Second, [...], as terminating the worke of the salvation in him, distinguisheth all, and declares all to be one, Nor will this seeme strange, if you recall that God did ever discover himselfe in the Person of his Sonne. Deny it, and you denie the whole Worship of God.

Answer.

Your two Syllogismes be false; in the one are quatuor termini, the other is in quarta figura, and [...] in both. All the force you could make to uphold these, were cut off before. And to doe it, I must confesse, you constrained me to climbe where I tremble to thinke. The direction I tooke, was from the Scriptures and the Church. If I have mistaken, I shall not blush to learne. Qui legit, Aug. de Trin. l. 1 [...] c. 3. ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me. Let the Reader, where he finds his owne error, returne to me, where mine, recall me.

Answer.

Your Syllogisme is in quarta figura, and that is sufficient answer to it. Howsoever you have tumbled it forth, this is it.

God will not require that duty of all his creatures, which most have not power to performe.

But most of his creatures have not power to bow at the Name of Iesus.

Ergo. To bow at the Name of Iesus, is not required of all his creatures.

Here is prae. sub. the medium is the praedictate in the Major, and the subject of the Minor, and therefore concludes against nature. Beside, ex puris negativis vi formae nihil concluditur.

If this be not, you shall have enough. To the first part there­fore I answer. God gave to all of whom he requires. If any faile, looke they to it. He that pleades excuse multiplies his fault. Yet tis no Blasphemy to say that God requires▪ where he gives not speciall grace. No cruelty Sir, but his austere justice. Luke 19.21.22.23.

Answer.

The first demand at this second part is answered before Sect. 3. No creatures are called to this account, save those which have a fa­culty thereto.

Secondly, I deny not the subjection of all creatures, but averre that [...], the bowing of the Knee in the Text is peculiar to the reasonable onely. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 53.

Thirdly, we men performe it, or ought in our circumstances; the rest in theirs. Sect. 5.

Fourthly, the heavenly having the Person with them, bow in the sense of the Name. His Name is on their foreheads, and they in full subjection unto him. See Sect. 8. and my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 62.

Answer.

This is the fifth, and I retort it. How shall deafe men heare the Word, or Infants be taught it? This then concludes that wee are but in the way unto perfection, and no more.

Answer.

Here is a sixt Quaere, and it is found thus. The Devils shall bow, as they did confesse, Mat. 8.29. Act. 19.15. and tremble most at that Name wherein they were conquered. Nor is it a trembling onely; they lye bound flat on their faces, and in fetters of his eternall wrath.

Seventhly, though in Hell there be no Church, nor Divine Service, yet without repentance, the blasphemers of God, his Church, and Divine Service, shall in that Dungeon of Slaverie an­swer his justice. Tarditatem supplicii gravitate pensat, he that delayes, if there be not amends, strikes home at last.

Eighthly, Bowing there and blaspheming will consist. For they blaspheme, because it cannot otherwise be, but they must so bow.

Sphinx Theologico. philos. c. 38.Lastly, as Bias said to the Question, Quid apud inferos esset, quid­que ibi ageretur? so doe I, Nec ego eo unquam ivt, nec cum quoquam illinc reverso sum collocutus; I know not, nor ever shall, I hope, how the Name of Iesus is blasphemed in Hell; most despightfully sure: and I am sure it is on your side too prophanely handled often. And though here be not Hell, hellish acts are here; and unhappily at, not in them, we may have a heart to honour Iesus, when our knees cannot bow without a Scandall. The dutie is well done on our part, if we reprove the faultie, or avoid the companie.

Answer.

Your consequence I deny not: but in your way of proofe there is anguis in latebra.

The Text Gal. 5.1. is, [...] &c. Pers [...]st in that liberty where­with Christ hath made us free. What freedome's this? Libertinisme? No: then we should be free from Christ. He is an easie yoke. Mat. 11.30.

Is it from obedience to Authority? you would this; but this cannot be. The Apostle wills every soule to be subject unto the higher powers. Rom. 13.1.

Is it from conformity in Gods service? This, this is it: Your bondage, your burthen. Yet S. Paul commands all things to be done decently, and in order. 1 Cor. 14.40.

Gods Spirit contradicts not himselfe. There is something else we must stand in, and unto, even to ascribe our justification,Chrysost. in loc. August. in Evang. Ioh. tract. 41. to the onely merits of Christ. For verse 4. tis so expounded, As many as are justified by the Law are faln from grace. And so the Fathers, S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, &c. understand it. Servi eramus sed re­dempti sumus, to our redemption we stand and fast in this.

Answer.

Your antecedent doth miscary. The foresaid exposition brings us not into bondage. Outward acts are limited by circumstances, a [...]d according to the Scriptures, the Church hath set them well. Sect. 5. And the outward being nothing without the inward, [Page 58] that including this, the inward may be performed, even when we heare the Name of Jesus prophaned. Sect. 10.

Yet if any, when it is upon good occasion, shew respect unto it,Iustif. of bowing, pag. 11. D. Page will not mislike it, nor shall I. Pearles should not [...] cast before Swine, but Swine may be driven from them. The reve­rence then is to rebuke, or to avoid, and this comes within the compasse of bowing the knee too. For that gesture may imply any outward. See my Antiteich. Tract. 5. p. 47. If this be bondage we must give over the service of God. Because we cannot live here, and not live among sinners. And yet living among them we par­take not of, unlesse we live in their sins. There is no bondage then, there can be none in the duty, nor would the reverence be held cheape, if such, as you, were more sparing in the light use of the Name.

The argu [...]ent which you subjoyne, were it of force, would fall by that which goes before. Ioh. 3.8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, the holy Spirit is free; therefore bowing at the Name brings the Spirit into bondage.

'Tis true, all holy motions, and actions are from the Holy Ghost; and, I trow, tis no unholy thing to shew even outwardly our dislike of the vile usage of Jesus. And if this be bowing also, how is the Holy Ghost enthralled? or is not he obeyed, when his will is followed? Nay, you enthrall the Holy Ghost, or you, un­lesse you may be, ad placitum, without the controll even of the Holy Ghost are enthralled.

Answer.

Your reply to the rule of affirmative precepts is answered, Sect. 5. Yet, because you shall know the time of performing the du­ty is not limited by the Church alone, who I beleeve hath the Spirit of God, I will shew how the time is set by the Holy Ghost himselfe. Phil. 2.10. the duty is injoyned, at the Name of Jesus, that is at the mentioning of Jesus: In the next verse is declared the extent of that time. And that every tongue should confesse, that Iesus Christ is Lord, to the glory, of God the Father. Doe you now know the time? You are then beholding to the conjunction, [...], and When we are openly to confesse, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, then it is required of us, and no man will deny that the time of divine Service is the speciall time for confession. Then [Page 60] when it may be done to the glory of God, when God speakes to us, and we unto God, should this duty appeare, then we may be sure of it.

And then, if you will have your owne Simile of a Master and his servant hold, you should performe the duty your selfe, or else you doe then as truly breake the decree of God, and Canon of his Church, as the three Children did the Law of Nebuchadnez­zar. For though grace be in the Gospell, yet the precepts there­of are binding as the Law, yea they fulfill the Law. In the very performance of this one duty is expressed our observance of the first Table; a faithfull acknowledging of the true God, an humble worshipping of him a reverent usage of his holy N [...]me, and the sanctifying of his Sabbath in due obedience. See my Antiteiches­ma.

Answer.

The Church reproves the contempt of the duty, directs the more ignorant in the true sense of the Text; but tis the Text that commands all. And this all commanding makes it not a precept of the Church, but shewes that it is her duty to looke to the performance on her part. She goes no further then shee by her warrant ought, to rebuke the negligent and contemptuous.

You would seeme wittie, but indeed are more then idle, in de­manding by what authority the damned bow, and what Church-goverment is in Hell. Take heed of jeering; Scorners God will laugh to scorne; the same power compells the damned that saves us; and if you are curious to know what Church-government is there, you may goe and se [...]. For I know not who can tell you: For whosoever descends thither,Greg. Moral. 9. nequam ulterius ad hanc lucem redibit, [Page 61] comes no more hither. Goe play your Master peece, preach your poltie unto them, our Church expatiats not her owne bounds; the Canons she makes, not against, nor beside the Text, may not be resisted without damnation. Rom. 13.2.

Your marginall scoffe is imputed to your silly impudence. For he, that catcheth vaine things, hath ever the face to cast them forth as vainly.

Answer.

You come againe, and against your selfe againe. Can humility make the Church a Prison? Bowing is the ceremony, and were it more in use, would no more captive us, then putting off the hat, or uncovering the head did, the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.4. Your Confessour M. William Prinne hath granted this to be a du­ty of the Text; and as this hath its time, the time of praying or prophesying, so hath the other, as before.

And had you dealt conscionably with your Reader, the reason you give would confute your selfe. Take the whole Text, and you shall be judge. The bowing of the knee, and confession of the tongue, ought to be at such time, wherein God may take his glory of knee, and tongue. Either of them in such a time, but not alway [...]s both together, when they may, the better.

Here then is no ill worke, no snare. The tongue is not bound to speake out, whensoever the Knee doth bow, though when the tongues confession it, That JESƲS CHRIST is Lord, the knee may, and ought to insinuate the same to [Page 62] the glory of God the Fa her. You may see my Antiteich. Tract. 7 p 66. and be satisfied there;Laert. l. 6. if you will not, as Diogenes said to the boy casting stones at th [...] Gibbet, I doe to you, Eugo, continges aliquando sco [...]um.

Answer.

The Minor is denied, and your proofes fall short.

For first the high dignity of Christ is not inlarged by expoun­ding Name above every Name for dominion. Nor doth Ephes. 1.20. [Page 63] 21. prove more then that Christ hath power over all things, nor is it paralell to this of Phil. 2.9. unlesse we will shorten the Text. For he may have power and not be Jesus. But if we will have sal­vation, power must be poured forth in mercy. The Name then that shewes might, and mercy, that must be i [...], and this we are sure is Jesus. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p. 21.

Your againe, Dan. 2.48. infers no more, then that Daniel was made a chiefe Magistrate in Babylon. What you can wrest hence to make the Name above every Name, to be power, and glory onely, no expositor declares, nor can I, nor any man else, I beleeve, find. Your much talke argues you are not to be t [...]usted much.

Where you are on the other side, your mind is like the Ana­kims of the world. Nothing takes it save power and dominion. Tis the Name of mercy that God delights most in, and in Jesus all his mercies are poured forth. They are all in him, and yet his mercies are full of might. Sum up all the glorious Titles of God, Rev. 19.16. Lord of Lords, King of Kings, &c. they are all included when I say Jesus. But I cannot perceive why you should presse your sense on the Text, unlesse you beleeve that Christ redeemed, Vi potenti, onely by a powerfull hand, and not by price. You would make the world dreame that Christs sufferings were to confirme his doctrine, and not to sanctifie us through the effusi­on of his precious blood. 1 Pet. 1 19. Are you not a Socinian? If not, as like one as ever I saw.

Answer.

Tis true, Christ is Lord of every creature: and doth our expo­sition wherein we give him the highest Name of God ascribe lesse? Or doe we deny him any command of other creatures, when we yeeld that all reasonable creatures should acknowledge him by knee and tongue? Nay, tis argumentum a majori, if he be [Page 64] L [...]rd of us, for whom all other creatures were made, he is Lord also of those creatures wh [...]ch he made for our use.

Answer.

Thirdly, we deny not Christ any knee: But say that Christ doth here require our knees, and tongues, and literally these, though not these without the heart. These must be enlived by it, or their expressions will be hypocrisie. The obedience of the whole creature is implyed in them, and that you will have p [...]yd according to every ability; If according to every one, you contradict your selfe, when you deny the Knee. As therefore ve­ry ungracious you in denying Iesus your knees, so very discour­teous to us in saying we give the knee onely.

Your Asteriske dilates it, after your fashion, for a mighty purchase, and you have purchased much at Cambridge, if you thinke our doctrine of obedience so pharisaicall, as to give the out si [...]e on [...]ly unto Christ. No bare ceremony, not the signe with­out the signified.

Your taxing D. Page, for distinguishing a ceremoniall dutie, and a substantiall, is very like your selfe. He shewes you plaine enough how it is a ceremony and a duty. A ceremony as signify­i [...]g, and a duty as injoyned. Nor doth it follow, that being a ceremony unto u [...], it must be a ce [...]emony unto all creatures, that come not within the compasse of religious worship. Nor doe we practise, or mind it otherwise then an outward worship com­manded by God ought to be observed. Nor doe we charge the [Page 65] Angels further then the Scriptures have expressed, and they be­ing knowne in their postures your taunts shall never disorder us.

Answer.

Fourthly, the Text injoynes it not at all times, and in all pla­ces, was before. And though the outward be not performed with­out the inward worship, yet the inward is not the whole. Nor may we without Sacriledge take the outward from God at any time, though at all times we cannot, may not, outwardly bow to him.

'Tis very right, the whole man ought ever to submit unto Christ, and whilst it doth, it makes him ever Lord. Yet, I be­leeve, that on the Lords Day, we should be fuller in the Lords service, then on the other. At that time tis specially set, at that time then, and at other times when God may take his glory.

What you allow Christ doth not appeare; that we respect him is expressed. Though not so well as heart doth wish, yet with lesse hypocrisie then the practises of your Sect will permit.

Whose scandalous lives trouble you I know not, your termes are generall: Are all that observe the Text and Canon, and none of your side scandalous? For such and your worse lines take this. When, [...] is set on them, fire will soone be their end.

Answer.

Fifthly, the faithfull onely are of the invisible Church, and of them Christ is the g [...]acious Lord. Gracious to his, and Lord to confound the devises of all the Malignant. But will this exposi­tion rob Christ of his true Subjects? I have learned of him that none shall snatch his out of his hands. Ioh. 10.28. How then are they removed, and members of Antichrist thrust on him? You cannot tell, nor can you name one famous Divine of any time, or Church, before T.C. that ever wrot against this interpretation.

And because you are conscious of your owne inability, you have now dipped your Pen in virulence. Your full intent is, con­fusio in proximo, by raysing scandalls on their Persons, to blast the fruit of their labours. A sort of Ignorant, Superstitious, Lewd, Scandalous Persons, or meere men-pleasers, and servers of the Times, which are enemies to Christ, practise this as a duty of the Text.Sen [...]. de Vit. be [...]. c. 18. This is yours, and commonly obj [...]cted per malignissima capita, & optimo cuique inimicissima.

For my part I can tell you what Tacitus said to Metellus, and that's enough;Valer. Maxim. Tu didicisti maledicere, ego conscientia teste didicima­ledicta contemnere, you have learned to speake evill, and my consci­ence testifieth that I have learned to contemne your evill spea­kings.

How Antient and Moderne Divines agree in practise, see my Antiteichisma. Nor doth this opinion force us as you say, on Christ, but because we are his, we have such faith in him, that he can ne­ver be too high esteemed of us. If any flye off for it, they were [Page 67] not well informed, or are not ingrafted in him. Who feel the want of a Saviour, his very. Name is sweet to them. Your Asteriske poynts out that onely, which was idl ly done before.

Answer.

Sixthly, this was before, Sect. 8. But doth that deprive Christ of his honour, which if he have not, he hath not all his? And though this bowing at the Name of Iesus be the true bowing at the day of Judgement, it doth not follow that there is no difference of the Kingdome of grace and glory. Difference there is, but not essentiall. The same duty now in hand, shall bee in perfection then.

Answer.

And will this be an abasement to Christ, to have that perfor­med perfectly, which here can be but in part? I grant he shall appeare in Power and Glory, not that his Name will be Power and Glory: He shall have the same Name he here had. For the Day is usually called, the Day of our Lord Iesus. So in your Quo­tation, 2 Thes. 1.7. and at verse 12. the Name of our Lord Iesus Christ shall then be glorified in us.

We grant then as full subjection as you; but hold not, that in our perfect renewing this outward expression shall be left. For the foure and twenty Elders fall upon their faces, and worship, Rev. 5.14. So doe the Angels, chap. 7.11. and we in the humblest way shall like them, shew forth the great glory of the Lord.

It was before, that bowing is not a Ceremonie onely. At the Note in your Margine you suppose, which I never yeelded, that bowing is onely necessary by the Canon. But if it were, may not bowing be a dutie of the Church Triumphant? Not by humane injunction, by the eternall Canon of the Lord it shall. And if outward expression seeme poore to you, why are the Seraphins set forth covering of their faces, Isa. 6.2. and the Saints and Angels in their humble Cadencies, Rev. 3.10. & 5.8.14. & 7.11.12? And is this poore advancement? Against the glory of God, a ridiculous mock-Kingdome? A derision worse then that of the Iewes, when they had condemned our Saviour; and a blas­phemous opinion? What strange Pride attempted this horrid Blasphemie? Are you minded to goe to Heaven, who write this in earnest? Had my Pen said so, I would, by the grace of God, make that Hand openly recant, which made it so speake, and in such Characters too, as might testifie true remorse. The more humble we are, the more God is glorified; and it will be our highest glory, that we shall ever be humble in his presence. Who minde not so to be, will never be exalted thither. Indeed, Pride was first brought forth in Heaven, sed velut immemor qua via ceoidit, illuc postea redire non potuit; Hing. de anima. l. 1. but as if it had forgotten the way it fell from thence, it could never finde the way to returne thither.

Answer.

The antecedent is very false, if you could cast aside your sup­position of the bare Name, yet were that true, your argument is not right. For a truth may be in analogie, and not typified, nor prophesied. Neither of the places Act. 3.24. and 10.43. speake of the typifying and prophesying of every particular, but of Christ in generall termes. Nor doth Mat. 5.18. teach more then that not one jo [...] or tittle of the Law shall not faile till all things be fulfilled.

But how if it be found in type and prophesie? will you still preach it damnable superstition? Is it not shadowed Gen. 37.9. I dare beleeve S. Augustine before you, and he saith,Aug. quaes. sup. Gen. 123. l. 1. that dreame was fulfilled, in the Person of Christ, according to that of the Apostle Phil. 2.9.10.11. So was it in Moses on the Mount, Exod. 17.11.12. Where he beholding the typicall deliverer doth homage to the substantiall, and there, quia illic nomen Domini Iesit dimicabat, because the Name of the Lord Iesus did skirmish there, saith Tertullian. Tertul. adv. Mars. l. 3. c. 18.

I have shewed it foretold by God himselfe in Exod. 3.15. by the Prophet David, Psal. 75.1. and 111.9. by Isaiah, Isa. 45.23. See my Antit. Tract. 4. pag. 33. If satisfaction be not given there, I shall say of you as S. Augustine did, De Chatechizandis rudibus, Omnia contemnit, qui non solum quantum potuit, sed etiam quantum voluit habere contemnit, he contemnes all things, that not onely contemes as much as he could, but as much also as he would have.

Answer.

Take the Name in the sense, and the antecedent is false. Yet if there were no example, your consequence is naught. For there may be sufficient Light for that in the Scripture, whereof there is no president for the practise. As in Sect. 4. & 8. & 13.

And though it be no necessarie dutie at all times, as an out­ward ceremonie, yet in its circumstances, when it ought to be [Page 71] expressed, the contempt is desperate. It is not the saying, it was not practised, will serve: Shew me an example of any mans put­ting off his Hat in the time of Praying and Prophesying, if you can; yet that I hope is a dutie of the Text.

But we doe reade of severall Gestures there, among which Bowing is more then intimated, and at the Name of Jesus too, if you will give the Name a sense. At, and in the sense of the Name, Moses spreads his hands before the Lord on the Mount, Exod. 17.11, 12. King David will have us worship Bowing, Kneeling, be­fore the Faces or Memorials of Jehovah, Psal. 95.6. And is not the Name of our God his Memoriall for ever, and the Principall, Exod. 3.15. Psal. 135.13? The Disciples fall on their faces, and worship at the hearing of a Voyce, Mat. 17.6. And you shall finde Saint Stephen, Act. 7.60. Saint Peter, Act. 9.4. Saint Paul, Ephes. 3.14. And the whole Church, Act. 20.36. in this practise.

But you will reply, there is not bowing at the Name ex­pressely.

I answer it is ever implyed when we goe unto God, or else our labour is in vaine. For he that comes unto the Lord, and not in, or at the Name of Iesus, goes into a consuming fire: and that's the reason why the Precept, Aske in my Name, is so frequent in the Evangelists.

And what, I pray, doe any of your Quotations prove, save that there are sufficient examples of faith, and manners? Your in­ference is so farre from those Texts, that it had beene as good if you had cited no Texts for your inference. We may not lose a Truth, because we have it not illustrated according to your Whirles. If you could hold your selfe, as in the Scriptures you ought, ad sensum, medullam, & radicem rationis, Hier. sup. Epist. ad Eph c. 1. as Saint Hierome sayes, if the Booke be his, to the substance of the letter in the sense, and ground of reason, you would conclude, that there is a Cloud of Witnesses, not for patience onely, but for this very practise also in the Scriptures. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 4.5.6.

Answer.

You are a rare Antiquarie, and in time may merit a Pillar of Marble among the Worthies. Doe you thinke the Apostle spake per antiphrasin, and positively commanding, meant the contrary? Was it not knowne a great way further from the purest times, then seven hundred yeeres? Prove you that, and shew who broa­ched it then. 'Tis you deceive poore simple soules by your broad Phylacteries: the Fathers are generally on our side; and not you, nor any man else that ever I heard of, can produce one against it. This is no ostentation, the Thrasonicall part is yours, and your sesquipedalia will not make one ynch.

What Zanchius Zanch. in loc. saith, is against your selfe: Praeter Graecos Latini quoque Patres de Nomine Dei & Filii Dei unigeniti hunc locum inter­pretantur; beside the Greeke Fathers, the Latine also interprete this place, viz. Name above every Name, of the Name of God, and of the onely begotten Sonne of God. Are we off here? Is not Iesus the highest expresse of God, or the onely begotten Sonne of him?

Your opinion, that Name is Glory, which was brought forth, but not knowne by whom, he sayth Theodoret re­jecteth; and who tooke it for a bare Name were Heretikes, and so say wee.

I doubt you cannot name who understand it of the Name Jesus and shew where; nor prove they are not very ancient, or not very Orthodox But if they be no more then three, or foure, they are more then you, or any are able to bring against it. For taking it, as we doe, de Nomine cum re conjuncto, of the Name with the thing, none controvert it; it, saith learned Zanchius, is Catholicall.

You charge Doctor Page, but note no place: for confessing, that the three or foure doe not say the adoration must be done at the sound of the Name, and that it hath no full authoritie from the Fathers; I beleeve you intend it, where your credit can gaine no repute, viz. page 133. in his Answer to M. Prinnes first Quaere. His words are these: ‘I have brought many Fathers to prove, that by Bowing in that Text is meant not an inward subjection onely, but also some outward expression of bodily reverence: and likewise I have brought many other Fathers and Writers to prove, that the Name in the Text is meant the Name Jesus. So then put both these together, and they will make up that Conclusion and Exposition which you re­fuse. But I can finde but few that joyne both these together; for those that speake of Bowing, commonly say nothing of the Name; and those that tell what is meant by the Name, usually say nothing of bowing the Knee. He saith further, that none of the Fathers crosse it; and He that is not against, is with or for us, Luk. 9.50. especially in Rites belonging to Gods service. Nor is this any disparagement to those glorious Lights, that the Church now should see a little farther into a Text then they did.’

What's in all this against us? You should have answered the Learned Doctors Quaere, and produced some ancient Fathers or Authors against our custome of bowing at the Name of Iesus, and then you would be the farre-seeing Dwarfe sitting upon the Giants back. Till you doe, all men will say, you are but on the ground, and tis strange presumption for you to over-looke.

Answer.

We hold it not a custome taken up by men, but an institution Divine, to insinuate, and against all [...], that Jesus Christ is Lord. Wee goe not to prove, that it was first in use against the Arrians; but being then, that practise shewes it was in the Pri­mitive times. And that it was then used, Zanchy, Whitegift, and Hooker, more Learned then any you can bring against us, affirme.

The place of Saint Hierome is very good, and farre better then any you can retort. But he is not the first, nor doe we force him to us. His words are plaine at Isay 45.23. where he expoundeth, Every knee shall bow to me, Hieron. in Isa. c. 25. by this Text, Phil. 2.10. In quo perspicue significatur populus Christianus: moris enim Ecclesiastici est Christo genu flectere, quod Jud [...]i mentis superbiam demonstrantes omnino non faciunt: In which place, saith he, the Christian people are sig­nified; for it is the custome of the Church to bow the knee unto Christ, which the Jewes, shewing the pride of their minde, doe not at all.

Where bowing of the knee must be taken literally: or else how doth it appeare that the Iewes did not bow. And 'twas a custome too of the Church, not any private devotion like yours. And [Page 75] what though he say Christ, doth he exclude Iesus? Or was it not granted, that the Name must be Jesus? Or was not Jesus Christ?

But he doth not say, that this Bowing is at the Name Jesus. What though hee doth not? If you minde the sense of the Name, he intends it as the Text doth, and the Fathers before, and after him hold themselves to the very Letter, in, or at the Name of Jesus. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. And doe not you thinke it the manner of Christians to bow to God, and at the Name of God to doe it? Your apprehension, I confesse is farre beyond my reach. For I could never yet find how to goe unto God, but at, or in, or by his Name: Nor at any time dare I ad­venture toward him, before faith hath mentioned Iesus in my heart; at that mention of him I doe, and will at any time.

You confesse that what S. Hierome saith, is now verified by every true Christian: But how? By humble praying to God in the Name of Christ. And can it be knowne that you pray hum­bly, when you have no humble expression? That's the reason I ever tooke you for a proud, and scornefull man. Now I cry you mercy Sir; And tell you, that when your vertue shines before men, God shall have glory also of them.

But indeed is that S. Hieromes meaning? Then first you make him contradict himselfe: For on Phil. 2.9.10. he saith,Vid. Rob. C [...]e. Censu. Scrip. veter. If I may ascribe it to S. Hierome, that all creatures should adore Christ, and I have beene taught that there can be no adoration without an outward act.

Secondly, you overthrow your former doctrine, viz. the subjection here is the subjection of all creatures, and shall all crea­tures pray to the Father in the Name of Christ? I had thought the damned would not, and the irrationall, and senselesse could not. You may summe up all your absurds before, and take them to your selfe here.

Answer.

Now you are tell troth: you say what is amisse, and what must be done for amends. First, the Fathers are wrested. By whom? not by you it seemes, you read not, you care not for them. But how can they be wrested where no word nor sense is changed? See my Antiteichisma, and supervise me.

Secondly, that I must produce the Fathers to say &c. that is to speake English, meane you so? In their languages the Name of Jesus is above every Name, and the bowing in the Text is the bowing in or at the Name of Jesus. If you dislike the translation of Nomen Iesu, by Name, you may use mention. For nothing else can be so rightly understood. Not power or glory, was shewed before. Not Person, for [...], to him in the ninth verse is his Per­son, and the sense would be, God hath given his Person, a Person which is above every Person. There must then either be a peri­phrasis in [...], and in the Name of Iesus, is when Iesus is named, mentioned, &c. or Nomen must be translated mention, and so it will reach kneeling at prayers, and bowing at other times. In, or at the Name all the Fathers that I have seene doe say, and not one any thing that may be forced against it. See my Antiteichisma, and for your labour here I returne an Epigram of Martial.

Answer.

Hic labor, hoc opus; In your Epistle you tye me to answer eve­ry thing, or you will take no answer to any thing: and here is that I never heard of, and verily beleeve, never was, as is expres­sed in your termes.

In the late crazie, you say, and say it in the loose dayes now. If there might be a revolution of them, these are more abhorred then in hast to be recalled. In the late it was, and before the late the dayes were too remisse, or these had not beene now.

Now they are, and now we heare the Visitors at their Visita­tions gave leave to some Ministers, that scrupled the sole bowing at the Name Iesus, to bow at other Divine Names. This I remem­ber, that M. Maynard of Mayfield being questioned upon the Canon, had nothing to say against it, but that he would bow at other Divine Names too. The Visitor answered, that all the Names and Attributes of God were to be used reverently; but this was commanded, or to that effect.

Whether entring into speech of his grace of Canterbury, at the Name of William he put off his Hat, and the greater part of Mini­sters then present made low obeysance, I know not. I was not then in presence, if I had, I should have beene so civill as you could wish I would say. And if all you write were thus, there was not, there could not be, I should thinke, more in all, then a token of obedience.

Answer.

You contend, that this toleration and this practise doe contra­dict our opinion of bowing at the Name: and because you doe contend you could question the distinction of Divine and Civill worship. You could: could you also question the first and Second Table? You may doe the one as well as the other. When I meet with M. Gurnay, I'le follow your direction, in the while I shall try whether, rem poteris servare tuam, you can maintaine your owne?

You say, that distinction cannot be admitted here: for then how shall the advancement of the Name Iesus above other Names appeare?

Very good: you will give no honour to the King, that the honour of God may the more appeare. Here is Manicheisme, and Anabaptisme, with a witnesse. If such Doctrine be preached, be printed, no marvell that the contention is so hot for paritie. Have you forgot the similitude our Saviour taught betweene the [Page 79] first and second Table, Mat. 22.37, 38, 39? I will remember you, it consists in qualitie, both sincere; in analogie, both from love; and in punishment, the violation of both hath the guilt of eter­nall damnation. Herein is the great difference; the first, is im­mediate worship of God; the second, mediate. The second then is not [...], fraudative, but [...], completive, [...], so appendent, that he which loves not his neigh­bour, doth much lesse love God, 1 Ioh. 4.20.

The Divine worship goes not to man; our bowing to Superi­ours, or at the Name of the King, &c. hath reference to the Ordinance of God. There is no inconsistence then betweene the bowing at the Name of Iesus, and bowing at the Name of Charles: for that shewes the immediate honour of God, and this other his mediate.

At your againe, you get as little: For all the Names of God being Divine, ought to be religiously handled; and if any man bow at the Name of Jehovah unto God, if not in con­tempt of the Name of Iesus, Ile not forbid him. But let him doe it at the Name of Iesus above all, because above all it is commanded; and why he should, in my Antiteichisma, Tract. 3. are reasons many. Nor doth this imply any contradiction, because Iehovah is the Name of God; yet he that bowes at Iehovah, and mindes not Iesus, is a Iew.

And though every Divine Name be alike Divine, yet all Divine Names are not set forth alike to us, wherein wee should worship God. Iehovah, of all, was most to the Iewes, Iesus is to us. And though we may, and sometimes doe, put off a Hat at the Name of, or bow the knee to a Superiour, yet we part not with any Divine worship, as this Jesu-prophaner falsely chargeth us. We onely signifie our love and high esteeme of him, as Gods Vice-gerent. Bare Names are not capable of any honour, nor doe we give them any. Charles is our Supreme Head, next under Christ; and therefore King Charles hath, or should have the highest respect of us on Earth. But Iesus is the Supreme of all Supremes, and therefore to him, as the Head of the Church, give we the greatest super-eminencie. Non sumus ergo pares.

Answer.

First, In your reply you goe on with your old mistake, that we seperate Names from Things: and once more I informe you, that Iesus is by dispensation the onely Name, wherein God, and all hee is, in Persons and Attributes, receives due and equall honour.

Secondly, God hath commanded bowing unto Names, if you can understand the Things under the Names, and without Names I know you understand nothing. Of this you have exam­ples in the old and new Testament very frequent. But you will say, that is to the Name and Thing as the object, not at the Name to the object. Even so too, you see Sect. 4. and 13. and Mat. 17.6. the Disciples are found in the very practise.

‘But is it not sufficient, that God commands you to bow at this Name,Iustifica­tion of bow. p. 31. and hath not layd the like command on you to bow at any other of his Names?’ Doctor Page affirmes, and so doe I, that his command is reason enough to obedient Christi­ans, [Page 81] who find the reasons of his commands are sometimes secret, though alwayes just. Yet we know some reasons for this, and you may read them in my Antiteichisma, Tract. 1. 2. 3. 4.

I have no more to say unto you here, but that as your Section began untowardly, so it goes out vilely. For though there be no expresse command for bowing at all Divine Names, yet it is blas­phemie to make it evil to bow to them in their sense. Nor do you a little blaspheme our Church, in saying that she gives this bow­ing unto the Names of men. God forbid, that we should make men equall with him, or all men equall. Such prophanesse dares much. It will not permit, iracunda Iovem ponere fulmina, the Almightie God to divert his heavie judgements.

Answer.

You are very bold still with the Text and Church. Indeed there must be offences, but woe unto the man by whom they come. [Page 82] Mat. 18.7. If there be evill, will the Scripture make the scan­dall? The dutie is neglected, and therefore this literall exposi­tion of the Text offends the Church.

Againe, some men doe not observe the injunction, o [...] Canon, according to the Text, therefore the Church is in fault for ma­king such a Canon. Here you doe Machiavalize among the peo­ple to some purpose. This is it hath spurned the religious, and learned into the very Channell of filthinesse. God hath permitted, and they that are approved shall be knowne. 1. Cor. 11.19.

But suppose, Bishop Alley, Bishop Babington; and will you take authority from a Bishop, that have cryed downe Bishops as Anti-Christian, greedie Wolfes, hungrie Lyons? take it whence you can, I care not much: From Doctor Airy, Doctor Whita­kers, Doctor Fulke, Doctor Willet, if you have no other, your strength is not great.

Bishop Alley I have not seene, but not one of the other deter­mine against any more then the Superstitious abuse of the Name Iesus.

Yet suppose some, or all of these, or more refused this exposi­tion, did not the two Universities, in the dayes of Queene Elizabeth, and of King James of blessed Memorie, and the Synod begun at London, 1603. hold as learned and more Worthies, who concluded this a dutie necessary to be performed. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. pag. 38.

Suppose againe, that no man as Master Hooker saith, was con­strained unto it: I will suppose no man was so mad as to con­temne it. And suppose Ministers suspended for other Ceremo­nies, were never questioned for this: I will againe suppose they were not complained of. All then you say doth no more make it not a duty of the Text, or accuse the Church of hypocrisie, then your not administring the Lords Supper, but as, and when you please, doth. One particular destroyes not the generall: Nor doth the not punishing every neglect of a duty make it lesse a dutie.

It may often happen, as now it doth, that the Church hath little or no power to punish. But had she power, and were not the Canons within the Church-wardens inquirie? Did they, or any other ever Present the default, and it passed without blame? [Page 83] Bishops though they be eminent inspectors, are not Omnisci­ent. If the offenders be not made knowne, whom shall they correct?

The Scriptures hath prescribed this, Non sit dubitandum, Aug. Epist. 110. ad Ianu. quin ita facere debeamus, No doubt we ought so to doe. The Church therefore questions not every neglect before she finds the con­tempt. And the lesse, because she holds it a part, insolentissimae insaniae, of most insolent madnesse to dispute Gods com­mand.

Answer.

Whom you here meane I know not, some and some of the chiefest they are, and in their opinions uncertaine they. Because what you thinke you say, and care not what. Sir, if you will un­derstand, what, I feare, you studie to contemne, this Orthodoxe [Page 84] truth, you must goe from the Text to the Canon, and from the Canon to the Text.

Thus, if you will from the Text to the Canon, as to the Hy­pereticall or Ministeriall Diction of the Sentence; and then from the Canon to the Text, to examine it by the Decisive of the Scripture. This course I first tooke, and the Scripture hath so determined it in my Conscience, as I write.

Consider once more the Text, and the Canon, and this Ceremonie is a Divine dutie, and a Humane. As comman­ded in Scripture, it is a Ceremoniall dutie Divine, or of the Text,Iustifi, of bowing, P. 8. saith Doctor Page; and as commanded by the Church, it is also a Ceremoniall dutie Humane, or of the Canon.

Who then aske, how I am sure that this is the Truth? Answer is, the Church hath so expounded it: If demand be, how is this Opinion of the Church discerned? An­swer is, by the Letter of the Text, and in the analogie of the Truth.

Nor is this all: I am bound by the Text, and by the Church; if I will not observe the Text, God will punish me for disobeying the Church also: And this we finde in the Scriptures he doth more grievously, then sinnes immediately committed against himselfe.

So to looke we ought unto the Text, and to the Canon. And if this be halting betweene two opinions, you must halt in many things, or be very ignorant; and because you will not be stayed by the Church in any thing, you stumble often as you goe.

And now are fallen heavie on Doctor Page, whom a good man, having blessed God for him, will honour for his worth, and thanke for his paines.

Ambros. sup. beati imma­cul. Ordinis ignorantia conturbat negotiorum naturam, formamque merito­rum; and you have done what thereby you could to crack his credit, which still encreaseth by your contempt.

You note him for halting, where his judgement is most sound. I'le expresse his words, because you have chopped them to spoyle his sense.

What see you here, save a modest and free confession of his first thoughts? His care and course not to erre, his submission to the Authoritie of the Church, and his confidence, even at the sundry insults of his Adversarie, that it is a dutie of the Text. Hee doubteth, hee searcheth, hee findes, hee stands to it. Here is no despising of Prophesying, but an examining of all things, a holding fast that which is good; and this is Apostolicall, 1. Thess. 5.20.21.

Will you be remembred now? The time was, when you held it lawfull to be done, and since writ to me, that it was an indifferent Ceremonie. But now, in this great Loose, you have preached it Damnable Superstition: Damnable you will have it.

Is not this, [...], worse th [...]n doubting, even frau­dulent, and base playing on both sides. Carpere vel noli no­stra, vel ede tua.

Answer.

Certainely you have a Worme, and cannot be quiet. Let any Scholler, with an impartiall eye, peruse the Learned Doctors Booke, and he will deeme that you either know not Authoritie, good from bad, or minde not what you reade.

I have looked into most of the Authors themselves, and must testifie unto the World, that you have taxed him falsely.

What though hee say, that Bishop Babington confesseth, ‘by bowing the knee is meant subjection,Iustifi. of bowing, Pa. 22. whereof bowing the knee is a signe, and wee desire no more?’

Is this any thing? Yes, very great against you; for hee is the maine Pillar you flye too:B. Babing. in his ex­posi, of the Catho. Faith. p. 197. and affirming the bowing of the knee there to be a signe, he overthrowes you.

Your paralelling the Bowing with the Kisse, Psal. 2.12. holds not: for his Name wee have with us, to bow at, his Person wee have not directly and literally to kisse.

Answer.

A strange rudenesse to be so lavish of Pen: but you are put to it, and having ensnared, know no other way to uphold your Gin. Tis ever your ultimum refugium, when arguments are convincing, to play the Huckster. A loose tongue countenanceth your owne by depraving others.

Tis infallible, whatsoever is not of faith is sinne. But ob­serves he not this Canon, who following the letter of the Text, keepes the analogie of faith, and obeyes the authoritie of the Church?

Had you descended unto Zanchies seventh and eighth rule of in­terpreting the Scriptures,Zanch. de interp. S. Scrip. C. 2. p. 423. you might have seene the Doctors judgement.

First, in containing himselfe intra terminos tam reales, quam etiam verbales, both within the reall, and verball termes of the Text.

Secondly, in searching the interpreters,Iustifi. of bowing, p. 5. and not yeelding un­to authority without reason. And this is the cause, saith Learned Zanchy, that we attaine not the true sense; some contemne the learned, others will read none, save there affected; with the former, I doubt, you are an Anabaptist, with the other, a Papist.

And in his wisdome Doctor Page hath so certainely stated the question, that you cannot maintaine your assertion without being in contempt.

Avoid this Dilemma, and I will set you free.

If it be full subjection, as you and your side contend, then tis not full without the bowing of the knee. For that is one facul­tie of man, an humble one too, and a reall, and verball terme of the Text.

If mentall onely, as some times you say, shew your mentall subjection without an outward act, for all outward may come within the bowing of the knee, and I will shew you that my eares see, and my eyes heare. One is as true as the other. If you cannot [Page 88] demonstrate it, how doth your light shine before men, that they may glo­rifie your Father which is in heaven? Mat. 5.16.

You are much out in your citation, 1 King. 18.21. God and Baal are repugnant, God and his Church are not. Our sooting is fast, tis you serve not God right, that obey not his Church in the truth. In this obedience we follow him; nor hold we it an in­different thing so to doe, but necessary alwayes. Alwayes to bee morigerous, though not at all times, and in all places, necessary to expresse such outward acts of obedience.

Answer.

Here are pretended Answers indeed, and can be nothing save pretences. We reason not for bowing at the bare Name Jesus, [Page 90] but for the bowing at the Name of Iesus. Yet, what have you got by this dealing? See what? You keepe the genitive case in your title of Superstitious Jesu-worship, to shew your impietie: and in your discourse change it, to make the world beleeve that we are Idolatrous. Both hath hitherto bin visible to every eye, and will be more in the end. And that it will, let the Reader note how you oppose, answer, and reply in this second, for and against, as the Spirit moves you.

Your profession in the front of your first Section, I answer with a profession that I know not what you have met with all, but this I see, that where you met with any thing that wee owne, you were either blind, or would not read it, or possess [...]d with a fanatike fury, that makes all things seeme other then they are.

A shew of proofe you confesse, because, in, is read, at; But are you not like the man, who so hated the light, that when the day appeared, the Windowes must be shut to keepe him still in darke­nesse?

Who say the Text is as cleere as the Sunne for this practise, you doe not Name, I am sure our practise is by, and in the light of the Sunne. If the context be animadverted, no cloud doth inter­pose. See my Antiteichisma. Your Asteriske, or marginall note, is answered in Part 1. Sect. 1. and 4. and 15. and ever where you are remembred to joyne the Name and the sense.

Your admonition [...] to unteach such vain [...] doctrine, is worth as little as your proofe: this is refelled before, and that rejected now. For the T xt you urge, is st [...]ong enough to confirme us. Psal. 63.4. Thus will I magnifie thee all my life, and lift up my hands in thy Name. Is here no outward act with the inward? Is it not in the time of confession, when the Psalmist prayed, and praised the Lord? And is it not in and at the Name of the Lord, that is, when in his heart, and with his tongu [...], he magnified the Lord by and in his owne Attribute? This was the custome of old: Moses praying, spread his hands unto the Lord, Exod. 3.29, 30. Solomon praying, stretched out his toward Heaven, 1 King 8.22. It was the Ceremonie of the Priest,Vid. Schind. ad rad. [...]. when he blessed, or called the Jehovah on the people, to lift up his hands. Our Saviour at his departure lifting up his hands, blessed his Apostles, Luk. 24.50. And in [Page 91] the Primitive times, when the Name of God was used in prayers,Tertul. [...] orat. c. 12.13. and prayses, outward humilitie was seene. It ever was, and will be the use, when Gods Name is in hand, to shew some token of inward submission.

For my part, I will ever, either by uncovering the head, or by bowing, or by lifting up the hands, some way or other, at the Name of God, whilest the Name is in hand, in preaching, or pray­ing, or praysing, expresse my inward subjection.

Answer.

You are much deceived, tis not the translation of [...], at, makes this a will-worship: 'twas in practise before, either Beza, or any other had translated [...], in this place, ad. Your correcting-judgement of our translation, makes your cause the worse, and teacheth the people, who have thought well of your great rea­ding, that you cannot justifie the slaunders, wherewith in this very argument you have laden the Church of England in your Pulpit. You have your time, that God may doe his Worke.

But we will againe, by the helpe of God, discusse the cause uprightly.

Answer.

Though there needes no reason beside the command of the Text, yet because you should not, nor any else thinke no reason can be given for it, Zanchy and Doctor Page render this for one, viz. it was an humble Name.

Iustifi. of bowing, p. 32.It is not with God as it is with men: we exalt for Greatnesse, he for Goodnesse: we magnifie men for Power, and Majestie; he for Povertie, Humilitie, and Mercie. That's his reason for his so reasoning, and ours too. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 1. 10.

Christ taught us so to doe, howsoever you seeme to thwart the great Rabbi and Doctor of his Church: 'Twas his Doctrine, L [...]k 18.14. He that humbleth himselfe, shall be exalte [...]. Of it he hath given himselfe an example, Ioh. 13.15. and he hath made it a Law, Math. 16.24. who will goe to him, must obey it: and the Apostle wills here, Ʋerse the fifth, that the same minde be in us which was in Christ Jesus, if wee, like him, will ever attaine glory.

The Consequence speakes plaine, whilest your Reason stands mute.

The Apostle doth not say, say you, that the Name Jesus was humbled; therefore he doth not meane that the said Name was exalted.

But he doth say, that Jesus was humbled; and being he was humbled in that Name, [...], for this cause his Name also was exalted, as before, Part 1. Sect. 1. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 3. Pag. 16.

Encounter whilst you will, the more you doe, the weaker you.

Answer.

You may deny what you wil; If you prove no better then by de­nying, you shall never be beleev [...]d by me. 'Tis true the Jews deny­ed not Christ this Name, though they acknowledged not the vertue in him. But they did deny the other, Lord, Christ, &c. and therefore the argument is against your selfe. He was not re­viled in them, but in this. Y [...]a they made it a Name of Scorne; cut off the last letter thereof, that it among them might not signi­fie a Saviour; and for [...], in derision they say, [...].Schind ad rad. [...]

Your evasion next is very poore: For tis most ridiculous to say that Ioseph and Daniel, being abused under a Name, were not [Page 94] abused in the Name, under which they were abused. Under what Name Christ suffered, in the same Name suffered he.

Suppose next, and I thinke, it cannot be proved, that Pilate did set up the Title on the Crosse in scorne of him; yet, I beleeve, that by Divine Instinct, he did it to upbraid the Jewes. And this the Reverend Bishop Andrewes hath obser­ved to be a kind of Omen, or presage of the exalting his Name.

Master Calvin therefore might well call it, Extraordinarium in Christo; For acquitting Christ, Pilat thereby shewed that Iesus bloud was upon the head of the Jewes, Nor is this all, Pilat wrot the Title in the three principall Languages, and by this praeludium you might have knowne,Calvin in Ioh. 19. v. 19. if you had well heeded Master Calvin, that the Lord declared the time to be at hand, quo filii sui Nomen ubique innotesceret, wherein the Name of his Sonne should be every where lifted up.

Cast up your gaines now, and see if this will prove the Name not hatefull to the Jewes. No; it will not. For this was Pilats act not theirs, and they opposed it withall their might. Ioh. 19.20.21.22.

Your Secondly, Thirdly, and Fourthly, are nothing: For wee doe not say that Pilat caused the Title to be apposed in scorne of him; but rather to the ignominie of the Jewes, who crucifyed one Innocent, and their owne King. This you should prove, that the Name of Iesus was not a laughingstock to the Jewes, Scorned, Vilified, despited by them, this you cannot do [...].

Answer.

You doe but say, that other Names suffered most in him; and if you have no more ground, your purchase is not great.

Doctor Pages reason doth not satisfie you; you can prove, that God proceeds not from Humilitie unto Glory, can you? That's it you have undertaken: but I beleeve you'le leap off like a Hare in the Snow, for feare of the Hunter.

Your owne may direct you; and the question is, in, or under what Name Christ was most derided? We did not, we will not take the Name simply in it selfe, but in its sense; and in the sense, [Page 96] he could not suffer by any other: For none of his enemies acknowledged any of the other in him. Jehovah, or Lord, Elohim, or God, were Names highly reverenced by them; and in the Name of Messiah, or Christ, they expected the Kingdome. They scorned not these, but scorned to attribute them unto Jesus. And because you cannot prove, that they were aba­sed by the Jewes, you will that he made them vile him­selfe.

For, say you, [...], he emptied himselfe of the glory of those Names.

Mistake not: you are from your purpose, unlesse you dare say, he cast away his glory.

His emptying of himselfe, was only the voluntarie assumption of our flesh. And this he might doe, and did, and was still Lord, and Christ, and King.

But the Iewes would not give them unto him: unto whom? unto Iesus: Then they did not scorne them, but disdained that Iesus should be Lord, or Christ, or King.

Your severall places, Iohn 9.22. &c. confirme no more, then that they did not, would not, acknowledge Iesus Lord and Christ. And so the Skorne was still at Iesus, that he should be Lord, Christ, King. 'Twas he had the paine of Losse and Feeling; they hated nothing more, then that he, that Iesus should be Superintendent.

Your Supposition therefore is false: For that time was not as ours. You doe but suppose, because you like not a King, that the Jewes would have none. 'Tis not so; they would not have this man to reigne over them, Luc. 19.14. This man they hate, this Jesus shall not be King, whoso­ever be.

The evill that was, was at the Person under his proper Name: And therefore the Iewes desired Pilate not to write the King, but that he said, I am the King of the Jewes. They expresse no ill against the Dignitie, but could not en­dure that Jesus should be so glorious.

Answer.

You have proved nothing against the Antecedent; and wee shall see as little against the consequent. You are still upon the old foyle; there is nothing, we know, spoken in the Text of a bare Title. Who talkes of a bare Title, save your selfe? Can you endure our Saviour should have a Name, and mind him in the Name? If you can, then doe what you can, you shall never arrogate what you list.

But it seemes lawfull for you to reason without booke. For I see here, first that you know not what is the Name, whether God, or Christ, or King, &c.

Secondly, you care not which it be, so it be not Iesus.

Thirdly, that you confound the Titles of honour, with the personall N [...]me.

Fourthly, that you will not beleeve the Text, which saith that Iesus was humbled, and Iesus is exalted.

Fifthly, that you contradict your selfe in your first part, where your maine contention is that the Name is Power, and Glory.

Sixthly, that you oppose the Text, introducing a Pluralitie of Names, where is Speech, but of one.

In your Syllogisme is [...], and [...], a changing of the question, and a bringing in of many. The six before are all in this.

But an other answer you must have, and this is it.

You were told before that Christ layd downe no Name: Hee kept all that ever he was, though in a peculiar manner he by dis­pensation veiled his Glory. A Name he received, and that is his personall Name Iesus.

That doth reach him fully, Christ doth not: For God could not be annoynted. Nor is God his full Name; for he is man also.

Iesus doth both; His full Name therefore is his proper Name.

What occasion then soever was taken at his other Attributes, which moved the Jewes, their hatred came still to Iesus. They disdained that he a Carpenter, Sonne should be called Lord, or God, or Christ, or King. Those Titles offended not them, but at them they tooke cause to be off [...]nded with Iesus. Disdaining that he should be such a one, they deadly hated him, when he was called such a one.

Now I'le tell you what here appeares, even a composition of Syllogismes.

In the Major of two, is, Confusio terminorum, and, falsum suppo­situm too.

You suppose that Christ layd down his Names, Lord, God, &c. [Page 99] Which, if you meane, as the Soule was layd downe from the bo­dy, is Arrianisme. But if you will mollifie, layd downe, by veil­ing, concealing &c. as I wish it might by all be understood, then the question is changed, not onely from Name to Names, but from the Name scorned, to the Name veiled. The question is not of Names most concealed, but of the Name scorned most.

There is also false composition a bene conjunctis ad male divisas. For, what meane you by, at the mentioning of these, Lord, God, &c. but that when he was called Lord, or God, &c. hee suffered disdaine? And so it is true in the conjunction, not in the division. True, in composito, he was Scorned, when called Lord, God, &c. but that therefore the Name Lord, or God, &c. was Scorned in simplici termino is false.

And thus your owne argument is strong against your selfe. When Iesus was called Lord, or Sonne of God, or Christ, &c. the Jewes hated the very Name of Iesus. Not deriding the Name Lord, or Christ, &c. they could not endure either in composito; that is, that Iesus should be Lord, or God, or Christ, &c. So Iesus, not Lord, nor God, &c. was still the Name of contempt.

The reason that you subjoyne, for bowing at the Name, they owne it, that will, I doe not. The reason that I give, is, because God hath highly exalted it by the Union and for our Salvation. And one reason, that it is highest exalted, is because it was lowest humbled. See my Antiteich Tract. 3. p. 16.

Your inference from the Type is not against this. Yet you may know, that when Ioseph and Daniel were advanced, they were ad­vanced in, at, and under the Name of Ioseph, and Daniel.

And I may tell you that if, in the foot of this Section, by Church you meane the Triumphant also, you contradict your self, where you said that Iesus should not be mentioned hereafter Sect. 8.

For ought therefore that you have here brought forth, I may close this Section with that of Erasmus, in his Preface on this Text, that unto Christ, for his humility famous, was given the Super excellent Name, Ʋt iam ad Iesu illius consputi & crucifixi No­men, se flectat, & submittatomne genu, that at the Name of that Iesus, on whom the Jewes spit, and whom they Crucified, every knee should bow and submit.

Answer.

I am heartily sorrie that obedience will not be, unlesse a reason be seene of what God commands. And, if any reason would serve, methinkes this is the reason of all reasons, that Iesus is our Saviour,

How his Name is, and how above other Names, to God, to us, and in it s [...]lfe, is at large in my Antiteichis.

Some have indeed taught this doctrine, what stuffe so [...]ver you count it, that Jesus is a farther expr [...]ssion then Iehovah, [...]o have I, and justifie it in my Antiteich. Tract. 3. Pag. 20. And if I said, that God in the Name of Iehovah deliver'd the people out of the house of bondage, say I not more, in saying, that he in the Name of Iesus delivered us from the tyranny of the Devill?

I doubt you love not Iesus, that love not those who so advance his Name, that every Attribute of God is advanced in it. For the glory that God hath of us by all his Attributes, is given unto him in the Name of Iesus. He hath so appointed, and we should so doe.

Doctor Page then doth not speake meanely of the Name Lord, when he saith, that in the Name of God, is no comfort without the Name of Iesus; but the comfort that Christians have, is that our God is a Iesus. No feare of diminishing Gods honour by the exalting of his Sonne. For it is both Gods will that hee [Page 101] should be so exalted, Phil. 2.9. and To the glory of God the Father, that he is so, verse 11.

Answer.

To your demand I have often made answer, that we take not the Name without the sense; nor doe we make comparisons be­tweene the Persons; nor hold we that Iesus is one, Iehovah an­other, Lord another. We doe distinguish the Essentiall Name, and the Relations, and not divide the essence, nor separate the Persons. And distinguishing betweene Names and Titles of the same Person make not Christ two.

If we did, as you doe here insinuate, and, in your third ranke of absurdities at the tenth, doe openly charge the Church, wee should by your first reason be Nestorians; by your second Arri­ans, Socinians, as impious as your selfe.

To your second answer I reply, that you are very absurd to thinke we attribute temporall salvation to Iehovah, and not eter­nall. But this we affirme, that God was in the Old Testament, [Page 102] knowne by the Name of Jehovah, but in the New more fully by the Name of Iesus. Yet not as if Iehovah were aliud, and aliud Ie­sus, one thing and another, but the same essentially. For the one-most God is the three Persons; and so Salvation is the work of the whole Trinitie.

The places you cite are plaine for us, the same, Iehovah Elohim, Lord God, which is the Father and the Sonne, and the Holy Ghost, is our Saviour, our Redeemer.

And because hitherto, unlesse you would be conceived a Tri­theite, you have writ nothing to any purpose, Ile tell you some­thing, if you will promise me to remember it, to great purpose. This is it. Though our Redemption be a worke of the whole Trinitie, yet by the eternall Counsell, it was terminated onely in the Person of the Sonne of God. He therefore is set forth, that in and by him the other Persons with him may have the glory.

For thus I Reason:

Answer.

I fi [...]st tell you, your supposition is false: It was never, nor ever shall be granted by me, that the second Person hath a greater Name then the first. If your argument then be against me, 'tis turned to nothing.

But ayme at whom you will, I care not, my Secondly shall be as you expect. Your antecedent holds onely, where there may be the relation of Inferioritie and Superioritie; not, in divinis, where one is all, and every one in se the same. You may there­fore conclude nothing hence against us, unlesse you can prove, that the Holy-Holy-Holy Lord is not one God, and that the Name of Jesus, by speciall dispensation imposed on the second Person as incarnate, is not essentiall:

Remember now, what but now I bad you remember, viz. It was the eternall will of God, and to a singular purpose, namely, that he who being in the forme of God, and was made man, might not be held inferiour unto God.

Adde this, that the second Person was ever the Person which dealt for us, in whom God manifested himselfe unto us, and through whom onely we have accesse unto the Father. Bring these together, and 'tis most evident, that the higher we advance Iesus, the more we glorifie God. No feare of setting him too high, who cannot be sufficiently honoured, unlesse he be at highest. For he is set at the right hand of the Throne of God, Heb. 12.2.Chrysost. in Loc. This that Christ is, [...], as the Father, is the highest demon­stration of the Fathers glory, saith S. Chrysostome. See my Antiteich. Tract. 2. p. 7. 8. Tract. 9. p. 89.

To the proofe of your antecedent I answer, the excellencie of Name argues Superioritie of Persons, that by Nature may ad­mit subordination; not where every one is the same in the unitie of essence, and are equally honoured in and at the super-eminent Name.

Nor can this contrarie that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.27. For we meddle not with the Persons, with the significant Name we doe. Yet I may safely and will say, that as the Sonne of God [Page 104] was humbled in our nature, and not the Father, nor the Holy-Ghost, so was he exalted, and yet neither inferiour to the Father in the Humiliation, nor in the Exaltation superiour, as in Part 1. Sect. 1. This cannot be denyed, unlesse you dare denie the other.

Answer.

Answers you have received, and insufficient three; from whom you might have said, that they might have done something for themselves.

The first pertaines to that which I gave before. How weake it is, your Reply will shew. Weake, said I? Nay, frivolous yours: For the blowes you made, have sunck you to the ground.

You say before, the Apostle proves, Hebr. 1.4. that Christ is more excellent then the Angels, because he obtained a more ex­cellent Name then they. The Rule then is permanent, whereof [Page 105] it was made a rule; and the argument as strong, as he was mightier then the creature. Had the comparison beene, if I may speake it, betweene the most equall three, it must have held where it was a comparison; but 'twas not, could not be there. Yet I may tell you, that the Name of Jesus is the highest manifesting Name of God, which was by dispensation put upon the Word Incarnate, and made proper to him, in whom only God was to be, and is, and shall for ever be most highly manifested. He then is the highest manifested Person, God be thanked, he is, or we should have no peace with God. Mistake me not, in forma visibili, I say, the high­est manifested in a visible forme, yet all are co-equall and co-e [...]er­nall all. No disparagement this to any of the Persons, they take glory all in this. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9. p. 92. 93.

In the second reply to the first answer, you doe againe shew your ill winding Art. Here you would intimate an errour,Dang conse­qence in 2. Resp. 3. in 3. R. 8. and among your dangerous consequences, note us twice for advan­cing the Sonne above the Father.

Was this ever heard of among Christians? Or how can this be done? For the more the Sonne is glorifyed, the Father is glorifyed the more, whilst the Father, is not, cannot be honou­red, save in the high advancement of the Sonne. A very dangerous consequence sure, that is without all possibilitie of danger.

He is at the brink of Arrianisme, [...]hat under-values the Name of Jesus, beneath the Name of Lord. The Scriptures maintaine the equalitie of the Sonne, with the Father, by giving him the In­heritance, and you his inequalitie, by taking away the Birth-right of his Name. I never read of an Heresie on our hand, but you are on the other, where Arrius falling, was condemned.

Answer.

Your second answer received, I beleeve, you know not whence, shall not by me be in terminis abetted.

This is all I have owned, or will, that though the Father and the Son be equall, yet the Son is the Person set forth unto us; that in whom our Redemption is terminated alone, in him the other may be honoured onely.

This, your first reply will not reach. For it makes no dis­crepance of will, but shewes that the love of the Father is decla­red in his Sonne.

Your second is answered before Sect. 3. and 5. and 7. and 10. so often as often it came.

The inference that followes there, is on a false supposition. For we give not the Son a Name above the Father, the highest Name of God we doe, and in a peculiar manner, as God by dispensation gave it him,Aug. Epist. 274. in whom our redemption is completed. Hoc Nomen ex dispensatione misericordiae, susceptaque humanitatis assumptum est.

In your third reply, I must againe put you in mind that our dispute is about the Name; which is the highest Name of God? not the Person; which is the greatest? Yet I vary not the dig­nitie of any, in saying that the Sonne alone is, principium & termi­nus, with the Father, and the Spirit preparing, the efficient, but in satisfying, the subj [...]ct of our redemption. Redemption therefore is, [...] by excellencie his. He was deputed to it by consent of the glorious Trinitie, and therefore we are bound to acknowledge the right his, to the glory of God the Father.

Answer.

The third received answer, if from me, you had it thus, Iesus is an essentiall Name, though not attributed to God, till in the fulnesse of time God put it on the Sonne of Man, and at his exal­tation, declared it the highest, and the Person to be the Lord God, which is the blessed Trinitie. Being therefore the highest expression of God, it cannot make one higher then another: because one is all, and every one the same God. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9. p. 94. 95,

To your first reply, I answer, that Saviour is, expositio Nominis, an exposition of, not the Name.

The second is not against my assertion. I confesse, the Name was given in type to Joshuah, not imposed on the second Person till the Word was incarnate. But with your Good Authors, I [Page 108] shall not affirme, that the Name of Jesus is a Name of the Hu­manitie onely. If you be so inclined, 'tis no marvell that you slight the Name, and them that honour it. Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, Chrysostome, Augustine, Bernard, &c. thought otherwise.

Nor need you thinke it strange, that Bishop Andrewes calls it one of Gods owne Names, and the Chiefe: for it being given in time, it's not the lesse, nor the lesse his. Jehovah, in former time given, is yet the Name of his Eternitie; Iesus in the latter, the Name of his eternall Mercie; and of all the Chiefe, because all other Names of God are poured forth in it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p. 21.

He goes beyond his owne Reading, take it how you will, that will undertake to make the Bishop contradict himselfe. 'Tis wantonnesse in you to challenge him.

The Name of Jesus, doth denominate his Person taken out of our sight; and yet it doth not follow, that then it denominates his Humanitie onely, unlesse you can make the Humanitie his Person onely. If you be, as you shew, a Nestorian, or a Christolite, you may: I doubt you are a Gnostick, a Cerinthian, and can separate Iesus from Christ.

You were told, and from Saint Augustine too, that this Name is a Name of the whole Person, and so made by Dispensation: Will you then say, that the Person of Christ is with us, in, within us? You are b [...]side the Text in the cited places; for his Spirit is in us, not his Person: and so you should have said, un­lesse you intend to rayse a new Sect of Egidians. Christs Person, not his Humanitie onely, is out of our sight, though his Spirit be in our hearts.

Answer.

Here is diversorum praedicamentorum confusio, a fallacious apply­ing the word reach to worship, which the Reverend Bishop doth to the sight. The full answer is, Christ is out of the reach of our eyes, not out of the reach of our Faith. This was in Part 1. Sect. 8.

The next consequence was reproved before in Part 1. Sect 8. We bowing at the Name in Christs absence, bow not at it, because he is absent; but because it is his, and we are commanded so to doe, and by it reach the Deitie. And though God be every where, yet he is no where visible save in Christ.

Answer.

This was answered in the first Part, Sect. 1. and now is againe thus. The sonne of Nun, &c. had it in type: the shadow they, but Christ is the substance.

'Tis Antichrists impietie indeed, to exalt himselfe against all that is called God, 2 Thess. 2.4. So was it Arrius his Blasphemie, to detract from Jesus, and Menanders to be called Jesus. 'Twas otherwise with them, who in the Scriptures are stiled Saviours, or Gods; [...] these; but Christ is Jesus really, sub­stantially.

Nor doth the imposing of it at such a time, hinder it from being the Chiefe Name of God unto us, no more then Gods tel­ling [Page 110] his Name Iehovah unto Moses did, from being the greatest N [...]me unto the Iewes. And that it doth denominate the second Person onely, is by Dispensation onely.

Answer.

You are still put to shift, and here pittifully: For by the same Reply you make, your maine Pillar in Part 1. Sect. 1. is fallen. I argue thus: Super-eminent Power and Glory is not the Name above every Name, because the three Persons have super-eminent Power and Glory. Will you denie your Answer here, or your Thesis there? The Reason is the same against you, as against us: For the Name above every Name is still proper to the second Person: What will you doe? Either you must come home to me, and yeeld that the Name of Iesus is made by speciall Dispensation proper, or destroy the whole force you have.

And this Ile prove first, by your owne First. For God gave him this, and that after his Humiliation; therefore it was not a Name naturally his, as a Person of the Trinitie. That's yours.

The like is mine against you. Be the Name above every Name super-eminent Power and Glory, as you have hitherto con­tended, and given after the Humiliation; then super-eminent Power and Glory was not naturally inherent in him, as a Person of the Trinitie▪ Here is the very height of Arria­nisme; and if you flye not to the gracious Dispensation, there is no avoiding the sixt Anathematisme of the Councell of Ephesus.

Secondly, by your Second, the Person onely that suffered received the Name above every Name, which in your Tenet is [Page 111] super-eminent Power and Glory; therefore neither the Father nor the Holy-Ghost, for neither of them suffered. Here againe you confirme my opinion of you; and there is no way to helpe, unlesse you will confesse, that the super-eminent Power and Glory was made Christs by the gracious Dispensation. And if you may, denie not me my ground, viz. that Jesus, the highest Name of God, is, gratia Ʋnionis, by the Union, and for our Sal­vation, without dislike, or inequalitie to any, made the proper Name of the second Person.

The Reader sees your Game, and smiles at your Contention, to out-leape your Shadow. Such toyes doe but toyle; Non enim relinquis, sed tecum semper circumsers absurditates: for you leave not, but still carry with you absurdities, and those very remote from the Truth.

Answer.

Here are two Lines at first, that shew the rest are to waste Inke and Paper. The Name Iesus cannot be prefer'd for signification take; no, that it may not.

Did any of the Prophets or Apostles say so? I will then beleeve you. But how if I prove what you denie? Shall none of your followers trust you any more?

Looke you in Exodus the 3.15. where God having told Moses his Name, saith, This is my Name for ever, and this is my memoriall. Is not there a N [...]me for signification prefer'd? Matth. 1.21. Thou shalt call his Name Iesus. Why? For he shall save his [Page 112] people from their sinnes: and there the Name is prefer'd for signi­fication. Throughout the Old and New Testament, this is the ground; the highest sense makes the highest Name. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.

'Tis this preferres the S. Scriptures: and if any man can finde a Name that signifies nothing, worth any thing, you shall have all the Reason, and I none. Till you doe, I and all men will laugh at your fearefull and dangerous Consequence. But let me see how you encounter with this my abominable Fancie.

Answer.

I answer, we, Jesu-worshippers, I thanke you for leaving out Superstitious, and now the Superstition is gone, I hope you will learne to worship Iesus.

We have the Name of Christ in as good esteeme as you, yet we minding the command, commonly set Iesus before it. And indeed,Iustifi. of bowing, p. 171: Tertul. adv. praxe. c. 28. Chrysost. in Joh. c. 1. hom. 2. as Doctor Page said, I can hardly call this Attribute Christ, a Name: You may more truly call it a title of honour. Vestitus Nominis, it is the clothing of a Name, So Tertullian; an appella­tion, a dignitie, Christus & Dominus non substantiae Nomina sed dignitatis, Christ and Lord are not substantiall Names, but digni­ties: So Saint C [...]rysostome.

What though Ʋrsinus terme it cognomen, a Sirname? be it so: So he and you will let, Iesus, be praenomen, the Forename. I can give you both leave to make the exposition, whilst Iesus is the Text.

The Name, Christ, doth but shew how he came into his Office by Unction, and if we looke strictly to it, doth denote his hu­mane Nature onely. For God is not, cannot be annoynted. But Iesus signifies him that is God with us, the full Person, and our perfect salvation. Whilst we keepe to it we are sure to misse no­thing. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.

Inferre what you can from the example of a potent Conqueror, there is nothing gained more by the relations of the severall Bat­tels, then hath bin granted: unlesse you can make the circumstan­ces of the Conquest more precious then the Conqueror.

Wee'l take the summe of your application, and grant that the Name Christ doth relate his investing into a three-fold dignitie▪ of King, Priest, and Prophet. I aske now, who is this King, this Priest, this Prophet? Is not Iesus he? Whatsoever is declared must be had there. The declaration of a thing is not more wor­thy then the thing. And this is the reason, why bowing at the Name of Iesus, we bow not at the Name of Saviour: Because it is not the Name, but a metaphrase thereof.

Answer.

If you take Salvation here, as I understood you before, [...], for [...], Luc. 2.30. Him which doth save; bowing at the Name of Jesus, because it signifies Him, can admit no dan­gerous consequence.

Your instance of Angels, Devils, Reprobates, was before, Sect. 8. Part 1.

All shall bow willingly, or against the will: Willingly the Good Angels; for though they never sinned, yet are they elected in him, 1 Tim. 5:21. He is their Jesus, jure conservationis; for by his grace they adhering to God, [...], immoveably, are sure from all danger of falling. In him preserved, they volunta­rily fulfill the Text to him. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 53, 54, 55.

But the Devils and damned bow against the will, as Iesus is our Saviour, and their confounder. For the Text is, every knee should bow. The Vulgar and Arias Montanus say, flectatur, if it will not, it shall be made to bow. As Captives under the Conque­rour, or the Condemned under the severe Judge, forced they are, and bow they must. Not our way; no such matter. For though the Text be for all, yet the sense of Salvation is not to all. If you will understand this Text of all in one way, you may by another Text, We shall all stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ, Rom. 14.10. conclude that we shall all fare alike.

Would you this? Your fierce driving towards Origens errour will hardly suffer me to suspend my censure. And hardly, be­cause answers of the reverend and learned will not suffice you.

Doctor Page, where you slight him, cites nine Authors, and saith, he could have named twice as many. But had he named none, the Text Mat. 8.29. (The devils cryed out saying, What have we to doe with thee, Iesus thou Sonne of God) would suffice me. For if they can call him Iesus, and acknowledge him to be a Saviour, though not to themselves, saith the Doctor, yet to others, why may they not, say I, in the same sense bow also?

When you can prove that the reason in the Text is the same to all, they shall bow alike all. And here it is plaine, you are as much out, as before; the duty concernes not elect men onely: See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. All shall give an accompt of it, and as their accompt is, receive all. Insignis ipse & praeeminens, Prudent. Cathem. Hym. 11. meritis rependet congrua.

Answer.

Your antecedent is false: for the Text saith, that the bowing at the Name of Iesus is to the glory of God the Father. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9.

The endeavour to prove the consequence is lost, when that is granted which is desired. He that serves not God for Gods owne selfe, shall misse the reward.

Yet you and I may as well be Donatists, Anabaptists, if we be carelesse of the meanes thereto; and Simonians, Saturnians, if we should thinke that we serve God for nothing: as Marcionites, in deeming Gods workes unworthy of him; or Cainies, in deny­ing the God of Abraham the glory of his Creatures: Gods glory is the utmost end. One of these, or these all they must be, that hold our practise of bowing doth preferre our Salvation above Gods glory.

I should have concluded contrary to you: but let us see your ground.

Iehovah, say you, is Gods terrible Name, the expresse Name of Gods glory, and God will not give his glory to another. There­fore we may not bow at the Name of Iesus, who is our Saviour, is your direct argument.

Is Jehovah and Iesus, aliud & aliud, not one and the same God? Here you are an Arrian, or a Tritheite, chuse you whether. And doe you in earnest preferre the feare of God, that proceeds from the sight of his terrible Judgements, before the love of him, which is from his goodnesse? I hope you are not an American, that making two Gods, one good, and another bad, will not regard the good, because he dreads the bad. Who are Sonnes, love God for his goodnesse, and therefore will obey him; but Slaves they, which feare him onely for his severitie. To come close unto you, [Page 117] the Name of Iesus is set forth unto us above any other Name, because all the excellencies of God are poured forth in it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p 21.

Answer.

It is not from the purpose to say, that Iesus containes Iehovah. For if it doe, as divers Interpreters hold, then the Name of Iehovah cannot fare the worse for our bowing at the Name of Iesus.

The extent of the Name Iesus in the New Testament, gives [Page 118] full scope to that sense. For who there is Iehovah, [...], Lord, or Elohim, [...], God? Is not Iesus? He is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and judgeth the whole Earth.

I yeeld, that [...] is as is interpreted, Rev. 1.4. [...], which is, and which was, and which is to come. As if it consisted of three Tenses, [...] ens, [...] suit, [...] erit, thereby denoting the Eternitie and Incomprehensiblenesse of Essence, Power, Wisdome, Goodnesse, or what else, unto Election, Repro­bation, Creation, Providence, Redemption, as you have expressed. All this I yeeld; yet this is not enough: we must finde a Name in which all are in execution, and that is the Name of Iesus. For all the workes of God, either of Creation or Redemption, are to set out the glory of his Sonne, Col. 1.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Of all the mightie Workes, you shall finde Iesus the Author, Ioh. 1.3. And the Worke of all Workes is terminated in Him onely, Mat. 1.21.

Bernar. in Cant. Ser. 15.His Name then is not of short content. Oleum effusum, Cant. 1.3. it is Oyle that is poured forth, aliisque liquoribus supernatat, and as Oyle it swimmes above all Liquours. The Power, Mercie, Justice, &c. of God run forth in this Name.

This Name shall spread throughout the whole World, and at the great Assize of the quick and dead be cryed up on both sides; by the Blessed, with acclamations of joy, Rev. 5. by the Damned, in gnashing of teeth, and gnawing the tongue, Rev. 16.10, 11.

I confesse it appeared an humble Name, but Humility and Glory must consist, or our hope is lost. He that is Iesus is Iehovah, or our Redemption is not wrought: for man onely could never be victo­rious over Death.

Had you not a little Socinianisme within, you would never thinke our Saviour the lesse glorious by his undertakings for us, nor God to have the lesse glory by us, for acknowledging our well-being in Iesus.

Your similitude may decipher you, it shall not us. We bow not as flatterers to their Princes, whose onely aime is their owne end: But knowing whose receivers we are, will not forget to be thankfull, nor to be humble, when we sue unto him for any sup­ply. Who doe otherwise, detract from God; and how then is he magnified, by being called Jehovah by us?

Answer.

Secondly, What benefit the Angels have by Christ, is before, Part 2. Sect. 5. They serve him, for preserving them in that estate they have, unto his glory.

Thirdly, I must here tell, blame me if you will, that you are the greatest under-valuer of our Redeemer, that I ever knew, or thought to know of our profession. You will have Devils, all Re­p [...]obates fulfill the Text, as, and as well as we, if we bow at the Name of Jesus as our Saviour. That is your inference, and can be no other; who will looke back to your Enthymeme, and then goe to your sixt ranke of absurdities, in the fourth and fifth, may see.

Nay, if we so bow, the Devils service will be more sincere then ours: O Blasphemie against God and his Church! Unto what Times hath God reserved us? For the valuing of Salvation, we are ranked among, and brought beneath the Devils; Deus omen avertat, this portends no good, God for his mercy avert the judgement.

But what's the reason of such base thoughts? This is it. The Devils, say you, must bow to him gratis, and as he is their Lord. Looke unto their pride, and Hellish practises, on their deprivation of grace and glory in Hells torments: Is it for nothing they [Page 120] suffer, and doe they suffer nothing? As freely as they serve, I had rather not be, then be such a servant. You see why, and how they bow, for their evill, and in horror. There's nothing sincere, where is no will unto good.

What's your Antithesis to this? A very desperate one, viz. But we must not bow, save upon a particular benefit, that Christ is become our Saviour. Here's your complaint, if both be joyned. The Devils bow for nothing, but we must bow for our Salvation. My Eyes dropt in the Reading, and my Hand trembled at the Writing of your But.

Is our Saviour and our Salvation at so low an ebbe with you, that a knee may not bow, to shew thankfulnesse unto him for such a benefit? Fl [...]ctere si nequeas superos, Acheronta movebis, if God will not leave his Commands, you will move Hell against him. Oh take heed; you know who was forced to crie out▪ Ʋicisti Galilaee.

And you at last confesse, ingenuously you say, pray God you doe, that this reason, Christ is our Saviour, and that now he is Crowned with Glory and Honour, is a very strong reason to move us to glorifie God unto the utmost.

You doe ingenuously: But doe you it faithfully? If you doe, why then say you, it is yet no reason that the Name Iesus should be the highest Name of God? Damne your con­ceit of our honouring the Sonne more then the Father, and you will mend much. The Sonne is no more advanced by our giving him the Name, then the Father, whilest the Father so ap­pointed it, and hath the glory of it, being so, Phil. 2.9.11. See Part 1. Sect. 9. and my Antiteich. Tract. 9.

Of our Salvation, Gods glory is the end; and if this be his, he cannot have this, but in and through him who saved us. The Church ever held so, and I will never begin to decry her practise. Per benedictum Iesum sit Deo laus, honor, virtus, gloria in secula seculorum. Amen.

Answer.

The Question Doctor Page hath there in hand, is, whether of these two Names, Jesus, or Christ, doe leade us most of all to his Suffering and Sorrowes? He affirmes the Name Jesus doth, you denie it.

1. Your first Reason is, that the Name of Jesus, in the plaine signification of it, doth not directly signifie dying.

Doctor Page choakes your argument thus: ‘He was called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sinnes, Mat. 1.21. How is this done? Goe to another Text, and that will tell you, that without shedding of bloud there is no remission, Heb. 9.22. You see then, that neere of Kin is Jesus, and shedding of bloud; and therefore you may perceive, that this Name Jesus leades us directly to his bitter Death and Passion. I can no sooner say Jesus, but presently I thinke of dying. And that you may know how neere Iesus, and dying, saving and suffering are, the Psalmist will tell you, Psal. 68.20. He that is our God, is the [Page 122] God of salvation; and unto God the Lord pertaine the issues from death.’

Aug. de civ. Dei. l. 17. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 67.And Saint Augustine doth say, that it doth there appeare, that he, moriendo salvos esse facturus, must save us by Dying. Domini exi­tus non alius, quam mortis fuit, The Lords Exodus was no other then of death.

'Tis not the bare saying, that many called God their Saviour, but few supposed that he should dye, will make good your words.

Could it be so promised, Gen. 3.15. so figured, Numb. 21.9. and so prophesied, Isa. 53.1 [...]. so often, and so fully, and not be suppo­sed? Was there any other substantiall Faith for the Patriarchs, Prophets, and people of God in the Old Testament? Could they beleeve, that by Death, Death should be overcome, and not sup­pose Salvation would be by dying? What though other Saviours dyed not as Saviours? That argues they were Temporall Saviours, and saved by his power who should dye to save them.

I may tell you, that the Heathen, in their sacrificing men, had an instinct hereof: For they beleeved, pro vita hominis nisi vita ho­minis reddatur, Caesar de bel. Gal. l. 6. non posse Deorum immortalium Numen placari, that the Power of the immortall Gods could not be appeased, unlesse the life of man be given for man.

Salvation by dying, was never so strange in the World as you dreame, that it might be supposed onely by very few. The Disci­ples indeed had, till the Resurrection carnall thoughts of Christs Kingdome; but after they received the Holy-Ghost, they preached nothing more then Iesus crucified.

What you say of the Name Christ, is full against your selfe. For Christ denoting a King, signifies one that is readie to Rule; denoting a Priest, one about to offer Sacrifice; and denoting a Prophet, one that can fore-tell things to come. All these are active and honourable Names, saith the Learned Doctor; in all these I can perceive no signe of Death.

You say well, and that is all you can say; a Priests Office was to shed bloud, but not his Office to shed his owne bloud. 'Twas Christs as Iesus, not as Christ, to lay downe his life for sinners.

To your Sorites, that concludes nothing, I answer; God can doe any thing which contradicts not his Will and Being. No [Page 123] question he could have saved us otherwise; but who justly con­demned man by the sinne of one, would have man by the obedience of one be delivered justly, Isa. 1.27. He could not therefore shew his Mercie without Justice. And he could never have dyed, unlesse he had beene Jesus.

Answer.

Secondly, Your first Reason against the Consequence, is gone by your owne Rule.

1. The Exaltation is according to the Humiliation. If it were lowest, and there be a Name to be exalted, that will be ex­alted highest. For from the lowest to the highest is the highest advancement ever, saith the Reverend Bishop. And that God proceeds from Humilitie unto Glory, is plaine in the Text. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1.2.10.

2. The second is against the order of the Text. For the Apostle saith, Let the same minde be in you that was in Christ Jesus, Phil. 2.6. He is our example; if wee looke unto him for Glory, wee must first looke on him as the example of Humilitie: For by Humilitie, and no other way else, goe wee into Glory. Minde wee that Satisfaction he made on [Page 124] Earth, who will have comfort through him glorified in Heaven.

3. In the third is ignorantia elenchi, you proceed not secundum idem ad idem, and so have changed the Question. The Question is not, whether we must bow at it, because it remembers us of dying; but whether it were not the most humble Name; and fittest to be exalted highest? We doe not bow at it, because it puts us in minde of dying, but because it was the Name so humbled, and is now exalted above every Name. This is one Reason, but the Command is Chiefe; and therefore we doe it onely when, and as it is commanded.

The rest, if, as the Question is stated, you will turne it at me, shall by your owne Marginall Note recoile. Quicquid convenit tali quatenus tali, convenit omni tali; That which agrees with such a thing as such a thing, agrees with every such a thing.

If then you aske, why we doe not bow at the Name Iesus writ­ten on a Wall, or at all times heard, &c. answer is, it's not, tale quatenus tale, such a mentioning, as such a one, which is prescribed and to be observed in the time of Confession, as in the first Part is declared. Sect. 5.

Take heed M. Gyles, lest you appeare to be one of those that Tully upbraids,M. T: C. de natur. Deo. l. 3. Qui rationem bono consilio a Diis immortalibus datam, in fraudem, malitiamque convertunt. The foure Syllogismes you sent me, being compar'd with this worke of yours, are very forceable to perswade me into such a feare.

Answer.

You are at your some againe; and by that time you come to some say againe, I hope you will not finde much more to say.

You denie the Consequence, and your argument is, The fullnesse of the Godhead dwells in every Person: therefore it cannot follow, unlesse we bow at every Person, or strip the other Persons of the Godhead.

I know every Person is God, and one and the same God. The Father is in the Sonne, and the Sonne in the Father, [...], essentially. The Sonne then being honoured, the Father also is, Part 1. Sect. 9. and equally, because they are one; and fully, be­cause he will not be honoured otherwise; and he will not, because in the eternall Decree he hath appointed his Worship to be exhibited through his Sonne. We honour no Person, if we ho­nour, not all in Iesus.

Nor doth this make as much for bowing at the Name Christ as at Iesus: For our Saviour hath the fullnesse of the Godhead, as Iesus, not as Christ. Christ is the accidentall Name, signifying his An­nointing: Iesus the substantiall, noting the Person Annointed. That you had before.

To your Objection of Christ specified in the Text, you meane, Col. 2.9. answer is: Thus distinguishing, I doe not divide Iesus and Christ, like the Corinthians; but onely declare, that Iesus is Annointed. Sive Iesus solummodo, intelligitur & Christus; Tertul. adv. prax. c. 28. Where­soever then we reade Iesus alone, Christ is implyed; and where Christ, Iesus is understood.

Answer.

What you say they presse, I beleeve you presse further then ever they did. This I affirme, we could never have conceived rightly of the Deitie, save by the Person of Christ, And though in our worship we can apprehend three subsistences, and one sub­stance, yet without our Mediatour this is nothing. Nor resting on our Mediatour may we consider his humanitie Seorsum, apart, but in the Person God, and Man, adore the Deitie in a holy con­sideration of the Blessed Trinitie. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 9.

That way I owne, by the humanitie to climbe up unto the glorious Trinitie. And whatsoever you thinke, I hold this no ill reason why we should bow at the Name of Iesus. Shew me how the Father will accept my worship, and not in and at the Name of Iesus, and I will bow at the Name of the Father, and not at the Name of Iesus. And shew me where bowing is expressely commanded at the Name of Christ, as we doe you, that it is at the Name of Iesus, and I will follow your direction.

Answer.

Here is another some say; viz. that Iesus signifies Christs Per­son, but Christ his Office; therefore rather at the one, then the other: I say so too.

But you answer, that Iesus signifies the Office of a Saviour, as well as Christ, as you have proved.

Have you? I know not where: But if you have, you have by so doing, cast your selfe. Remember you, that throughout your whole Booke, Iesus is a proper Name, and here you say it is a Name of Office: if then it be both, it is more excellent then that which is the Name of Office onely.

You reply that the Name Christ doth every where denote the Person.

'Tis confessed before, that it doth imply the Person; but not that it is the proper personall Name. This is not proved by you, nor ever will be.

That there is no Scripture for this practise, hath beene urged, and answered often.

You yet reply, that Christ brings us to God, therefore wee must pray the Father in the Name of Christ, but Scripture doth not say, that therefore we must bow at the Name of Iesus.

There is Scripture for both, and whilst neither oppose other, set both stand.

Nor doth it follow, that if we bow, at the mentioning of Iesus, to the Father, we must pray to the Father, by mentioning the Name Iesus onely. For praying, you know, is one dutie, and bowing another. Prayer is our substantiall worship, and bowing an outward dutie, signifying the heartie submission unto God. We mention Jesus carrying him before us by Faith, in our prayers to the Father, but doe not thinke that the mentioning of Iesus is prayer.

Answer.

I now perceive your three yeares croppe is unlading in your Barne. Infaelix lolium is the graine, he that eates with you, is like to have a giddie head. You have bound them up in one Cart, and intend to turne them off in violence to smother me at once.

But looke you to your selfe, my defence is made. The two Minors are false; what inconsistences arise from the first, have beene fully discovered before. The dangerous Consequences, [Page 129] which you pretend to follow the second, were as you produced them, [...]epelled in order. And now the false acont [...] which you have given, shall [...] under the particulars of your charge, ap­ [...]ea [...]e.

Answer.

• 1. Bowing at the Name is the evident token that not sepera­ting [Page 130] any Person, we distinguish every one in the Sacred Trinitie. Not dividing one into three, we discerne three in one.
• 2. It sheweth that the Name of Iesus is the fullest expression of God unto us, not that Names make knees where none are. Who have knees, and know the Name, should observe a time and how.

Answer.

• 1. 'Twas never, nor ever will there be an errour, that shall set the Sonne above the Father. The Father, and the Sonne be­ing one, the Father cannot be highly advanced, save by the high advancement of his Sonne.
• 2. This dutie reacheth no more then are capeable thereof. Angells and men, good and bad, have the obedientiall facultie, that way to declare Gods exceeding Mercie, and his severe Justice.
• 3. It doth not make God doe any thing: but shewes that hee, who cares for the greater, leaves not the lesse to our wills. Hee will have the whole man, or no part of him.

Answer.

• 1. It attributes the Name unto Him, in which all Power, Wis­dome, Goodnesse, &c. is manifested. No man ever had it so, as he, nor ever shall.
• 2. It maintaineth the Dutie of the Text, declaring, that the good acknowledge Iesus their Saviour, and the bad their Con­founder. Hell and the Grave, in their proper sense, come not at this service; figuratively they, that is, all that are there, doe.
• 3. It deprives Christ of no Honour. That Honour he therein requires, the reasonable pay, none else are bound thereto. And [...] your Tenet be not absurd, we may lay by Preaching, because [...]rees have no eares.
• 4. It is a token of the whole mans obedience, within, and [...]ithout. The outward, without the inward, is Hypocrisie.
• 5. It gives him his Honour so as is prescribed to the glory of the Father. At no time the knee may bow to any other, which according to the circumstances must bow onely unto him, when he may thereby be magnified.
• [Page 132]6. It demonstrates whose we are. None can deprive Christ of his, nor force other on him.
• 7. It doth not detract from Christs glory, but fully expresseth it at the Great Day. Not that it is the whole of his glory, but to his glory all, and setteth his Kingdome at the height.
• 8. It advanceth not the Sonne above the Father, but the Fa­ther by the Sonne. In him onely shall the glory of the Blessed Trinitie be refulgent.
• 9. It honoureth the Sonne as the Father, and maketh the Fa­ther and the Sonne equall. The honour of the Sonne is the Fathers, and no other his.
• 10. It attributes our Salvation unto the Person of Jesus, de­clares that he is anointed thereto, and that he being Jehovah, is the expresse Character of his Father. This it doth, and he that said the contrary, spake Blasphemy.

Answer.

• 1. It argues not inequalitie, but inferres the incomprehensible Order of the glorious Trinitie: The Sonne in and of the Father, and the Holy Ghost in and from them both.
• 2. It performes his Worke as he hath instituted, Vile men subject it not to their will: they are reproved, or avoided, for blaspheming it, and the dutie is done in that.

Answer.

It gives her no Authoritie over Gods Word; but sheweth, that she followeth the Word of God. She doth nothing against, nothing beside the analogie thereof.

Answer.

• 1. It brings us not into bondage, but doth manifest, that wee abuse not our Christian libertie. Being freed from the bondage of the Law, wee are not free to doe as wee list. The Church, according to Gods Word, must discipline us.
• 2. It makes not the Church a Prison, unlesse it be a slaverie to serve God. The bowing of the knee hath but its time, and being a subordinate dutie, burthens not the worshippers of God.
• 3. It declares, that our Salvation is to the great glory of God. Wee expresse our thankfulnesse by it, and ascribe the whole benefit unto his grace.
• 4. It is a full argument, that we confesse Jesus to be our gra­cious Redeemer. So to glorifie God for such grace, can be no error, much lesse, more then Devillish corruption. But 'tis high impietie in you, to abase our bowing unto Jesus beneath the blasphemies of the damned.
• 5. It expresseth in whom the Saints at the Day of Judge­ment triumph. But it proceeds from the Devill to say, that it is worse then Idolatrie to extoll his Name, who delivered us from the Devill.