Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
authority_n	apostle_n	great_a	power_n	2,075	5	4.8031	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A85889	A defence of A treatise against superstitious Iesu-worship, falsely called scandalous, against the truely scandalous answer of the parson of Westminston in Sussex. Wherein also the whole structure of his Antiteichisma, so farre as it concernes the po[i]nt in controversie is overthrowne, the truth more fully cleared, and the iniquitie of that superstition more throughly detected. By M.G. the author of the former treatise, published Anno Dom. 1642	Giles, Mascall, 1595 or 6-1652.	1643 (1643)	Wing G46; Thomason E64_6; ESTC R16778	55,127	71

in the sense above spoken therefore it followes that it cannot be understood of the Name Jesus because the name in the Text is a name of power and authoritie as that parallel place proves it Matth. 28. 18. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} all power is given me So Master Calvin on that place Quo etiam pertinet illud Pauli to which pertaines that of Paul hee emptied himselfe wherefore God exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name Again the scope of the name proves it for Subjection must be given in this name signified by bowing the knee Authority subjection are relatives there is no Subjection due where there is no Power or Authority Now the Name Jesus is a name of Salvation and not a name properly denoting Command and Authority Secondly though it should be granted that the Name Jesus is a name of Authority yet it is not a name of the highest Authority Doctor Page your own witnesse shall be Judge whom you judge unreproveable in his judgement who in his answer to Master Prynnes Reply to Widdowes Master Prynne having brought many places to prove that the name Christ denominates Christs Sacraments his Church his Apostles his Ministers his Saints his Kingdome and therefore a Name especially venerable amongst Christians doth acknowledge that the name Christ may be of greater Authoritie and dignitie then the Name Jesus though not of greater savour and mercy Now let Doctor Page with all his learning and Master Barton with all his Sophistrie reconcile this if they can how the Name Jesus can be above every name yet it be possible that any other name may be of greater dignitie and authority than it seeing Name in the Text doth expresly denote dignitie and authoritie Thirdly thought it should be granted that the Name Jesus is of highest authority in regard of the Church only yet in this respect neither can it be the name above every name in the Text for this name is of highest authority in regard of the whole creation heaven and earth and therefore without controversie in respect of Angels Devils and all men whatsoever according to the forecited place Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in heaven and earth Christ in this name commands the whole heaven and earth Now the Name Jesus cannot command the Angels because to them he is not Jesus by redemption as the name signifies much lesse can it command the Devills and it cannot command the whole earth for many nations have no knowledge of his written Law much lesse the Gospell therefore neither doth he command them as Jesus neither can any of these submit and bow to him as Jesus Therefore here the Name Jesus standeth as a bare name to Angels devills reprobates and many nations of the earth And let not Master Barton be angry if I affirme that he and his fellowes adore the bare Name Jesus For first understanding the Text of the Name Jesus they appoint the bowing to the Name onely and not to the person as I have proved and they cannot intend it to the person except they adde to the Text Secondly when the person of our Saviour is as fully denominated under his other titles as Jesus they move not but onely at the name Jesus Thirdly when they stand or sit to heare the Word a gesture allowable by the Word as soone as the Name Jesus is mentioned they immediatly bow and when oftentimes the great mercy of God in saving us is largely and copiously laid open in a Sermon or when in reading of a Chapter many excellent sentences are related wherein the sense of our salvation is more clearely notified to our understanding then by the Name Jesus yet there is no stirre no adoration but onely at the Name Jesus no not at the title Saviour which is the very sense of the name Jesus and better understood of all Fourthly it is ordinary with these men when they be upon their knees at the prayers to God and Christ then to make a speciall incurvation of the body at the sound of Jesus a plaine argument that these men are guilty of Syllabicall worship and worship the bare name more then God or Christ himselfe That I alone doe not so charge them Master * Calvin and Master * Babington do both of them lay syllable worship to their charge Therefore I returne Master Bartons scoffes upon himselfe and I would faine see how not poore silly flies but such mighty Elephants as this Saphister is can escape out of these nets and therefore his Crambe so often Cocta cast upon me is more then ridiculous viz. Name above every name as a bare name cannot be understood of the Name Jesus as a bare name and this shall serve to answer it every where when it is brought To the second part viz. If it should be understood of a proper name yet may it not bee understood of the Name Jesus my first reason is because the word Jesus doth no where denote the name Jesus but onely Matth. 1. 21. and Luke 2. 21. where it must needs so signifie but hee will have my meaning to be this that the word Jesus doth not signifie the word Jesus which is a Crotchet of his owne devising I say the word Jesus doth not signifie the name not the word your instance of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to signifie Jehovah in the old Testament is nothing to the purpose for I speake here of Jesus neither is the Parallel brought right for you should have produced where the word Jehovah is taken for the Name Jehovah and if you did it is besides the Question which is onely there concerning the Name Jesus But you can prove you say that name is often used for Jesus and instance in one place which if true it is not for your turne for you must prove that Jesus is taken for the Name Jesus but that place of Acts 5. 41. is not for you doth the Apostle speake there barely of the name or appellation Jesus you thought belike you should never be answered these be the words they rejoyced that they were counted worthy to suffer rebuke for his name what is name taken for the name Jesus here properly did the Appellation Jesus offend the Apostles enemies did not they call him Jesus as well as the Apostles This is that offended them for preaching that Jesus not the name but person was the Christ no quarrell at all about the name Jesus Would it be thought that one that professeth himselfe such a Scholler as Master Barton is should run into such an absurditie To my second reason viz. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is never taken for the name Jesus you object that I take the word without the sense but Sir you must not take the sense without the name the question is about the name Jesus as a name and though you take the sense with it yet you cannot bring any

besides is answered already SECT. XII MY Argument here is this that this exposition doth eclipse the glory of Christs kingdome therefore it is false The antecedent I prove divers wayes First the true exposition amplifieth Christs honour in these words God gave him a name as I instance in that parallel place Ephes. 1. 21. and as it is alluded to by the Type Dan. 2. 48. but the other exposition doth rather diminish Christ Glory for it attributes to him a Name distinct from power and Authority First you deny that Ephes. 1. 21. is a parallel place but so you deny the judgement of the best expositours who do parallel them together and that Dan. 2. 48. in the type is also parallel to this place Text I appeale to any that are judicious and you have not disproved it but by your deniall Because I expound Name for universall dominion you tell me that nothing takes me but dominion and dignitie but it is a name of mercy that God most delighteth in if we will have salvation say you Power must be powred forth in mercy But what is all this to this Text any thing shall take me agreeable with it but the fantasie of your braine shall not take me you calling Name in this Text a name of mercy you apply it to the elect onely but the name here concernes the Devils and reprobates also your selfe being Judge Therefore if you will have this name in it selfe to bee a Name of mercy you must make Christ to shew mercy to Devils and Reprobates or else you must deny that they bow This I say the Name in the Text is a name of supreame authoritie over all denoting Christ to be King of Kings and Lord of Lords but you affirme that the Name Jesus doth include these and all other glorious titles See how wayward you be before all the stirre was about signification and now you talke of inclusion but I deny that the name Jesus as a Name being as you call it a Name of povertie and humilitie and communicated to others doth properly include in it the name King of Kings why according to my stating the question which I have proved to bee according to the Text and other correspondent Scriptures you should lay to my charge that I goe about to make the world beleeve that Christ redeemed us by a powerfull hand but not by price and that Christs sufferings were to confirme his Doctrine and not to sanctifie us by his blood I know not except you meane this Text concerneth Christs redeeming us by his blood and then as I said you must make Christ to redeeme the Devils and then by your Doctrine you must make Christ to suffer againe and redeeme us when he comes in his most glorious kingdome and so whereas you say I looke like a Socinian certaine I am you looke more like an Antichristian To my second reason you confesse Christ Lord of every creature and thus you contradict your selfe for so the subjection must bee of every creature here implyed by bowing the knee Seeing then many creatures cannot doe their dutie as you understand the Text in this sense he cannot be Lord of every creature The residue is answered abundantly before To my third reason I have shewed at large Sect. 3. that you understanding the Text literally cannot understand it figuratively For my part I deny not the knee but I grant it not in a literall way and shall yeeld it according to the true meaning of the Text but not according to your fancy but here you contradict your selfe for you will have knees and hearts bow together therefore you understand the Text figuratively And seeing you joyne them together at the Name Jesus why did you sever them in conference with me whether you gave the heart or no I cannot tell sure I am you did not give the knee if you did give the heart by your doctrine you should have given the knee if the inward bowing were then necessary why not the outward Dr. Page making this bowing a ceremony distinct from a substantiall dutie I affirme makes it but a poore honour and advancement to Christ after his great sufferings and if it bee a ceremony to us it is a ceremony to all other creatures which you deny the same being injoyned to all And if as you say many creatures come not within compasse of Religious worship it is plaine Religious worship is not simply here injoyned But if you give the ceremonies and not the substance it is not properly Religious worship And so this bowing is but a mocking of Christ and if it be ceremony to us and not to other creatures as you affirmed I pray what is it to Devils and Reprobates if it be not a ceremony to them it is substantiall it must be one of them and what will follow hence Those to whom Christ is a destroyer must performe the substance and you that say you bow because of salvation give but a ceremony You be thankefull peeces indeed for such a great mercy that the Devils shall doe more for Damnation then you for salvation To my fourth reason whereas I say the Text truely understood enjoyns the bowing to all times and places continually but the other makes it to be done but one day of the weeke ordinarily and then also but now and then In your answer there is a manifest contradiction for first you say The Text enjoynes it not to all times and places which indeed is no better then blasphemy and then you presently say the whole man ought ever to submit to Christ how can this agree together For if this continuall submission be grounded upon the Text then I pray how doe you limit it the mention of the name Jesus when also no mention of the Name doth binde you to bow but on Lords dayes I would faine know of you whether Devils by the Text be not alwayes subject to Christ or onely then when Jesus is named If their subjection be alwayes to be done then it is false to tie it to the name onely If at the name onely as it must be so seeing you apply it so to us see then what will necessarily follow If the Devils be not alwayes subject to Christ by this Text then hath not Christ Authoritie and power over them continually for Christs authoritie and the Creatures subjection are relatives It will follow then that so long as they be not subject they bee Lords There is but one Lord and Christ is hee but Satan strives to be Lord and certainely if Christ should ever cease to be Lord Satan gaines it and as long as he is not in subjection he is Lord hee must be Lord or in subjection he cannot be nothing at all and in no relation see then the whole consequence of this Doctrine the Devill shall be Lord all the weeke and he shall not need to bow but the Lords dayes for then onely we are bound to bow say they except they will