of reasoning to attribute temporall deliverance to Iehovah and Salvation to Iesus onely for as much as Iehovah is the Authour of all good temporall spirituall and eternall yea our Salvation in Scripture is specially ascribed to Iehovah or Lord as Isa 43.11 I even I am Iehovah and besides me there is no Saviour So Vers 14. This saith Iehovah your Redeemer So Isa 12.2 The Church shall say Behold God is my Salvation I will trust and not be afraid for the Lord Iehovah is my strength and my Song he is also become my Salvaâ—ion So Deut. 33.29 Psal 84.11 Isa 26.4 And in very many places besides It is therefore beyond measure absurd to preferre Iesus above Iehovah and to ascribe Salvation to Iesus onely for if the Name Iesus be above Iehovah of necessity it must be above the names God the Father and God the Holy Ghost and so either way the second Person will be made greater than the first or third Person 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 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 I le 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 Whosoever hath a Name greater than others is therefore more excellent than those whose Names are not so great Therefore If the Name Iesus which is a Name peculiar to the second Person be a greater Name than Iehovah which he hath common to him with the other Persons or greaâ—er than the name God the Father or God the Holy Ghost it will follow expressely that the second Person is greater than the first or third Person The first part of the Argument is p oved from Heb. 1.4 where the Apostle proves that Christ was better than the Angels viz. because he had obtained a more excellent name than they This is also confirmed by the Analogy of the Scriptures for I have shewed before that Name above another doth alwayes denote the excellency of the Person above another that hath not so great a Name as Deut. 26.19 The Lord promiseth his people that will keepâ— his Commandements that He will make them high above all Nations in praise in name and in honour So Isa 56.5 The Lord promiseth to the Eunuches that will keepe his Sabbaths a Name better than of sonnes and daughters that is he will bestow upon them a greater excellency and honour than those that have sonnes and daughters viz. in that respect or tâ—ey shall be more excellent by that name that he would give them than they should have beene by having sonnes and daughterâ— Therefore to affirme that Iesus is above Iehovah doth expressely sight against this Text of 1 Cor. 15.27 where God having subjected all things under Christs feet hath yet excepted himselfe that did put all things under him Seeing therefore he hath excepted himselfe and hath not subjected himselfe to Christ by the selfe-same reason he hath not subjected his Name to Christs Name for if he had by the reason above-specified he had also preferred his Sonne above himselfe Answer I fiâ—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 't is 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 't is 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 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 The Answers which I have received to
that God would deliver Israel by him He answers At Deus scivit voluntatem corum direxit But God knew it and directed their will And some are no more called the Lords Christs than others are called the Lords Sâ—viours as Neh. 9.27 These Saviours there are called the Lords gifts which is al one as if it had bin said the Lords Saviours And wheras the name Iesus was a common name to be called by generally allowed and never reprehended in any But for the Name Christ howsoever some were called the Lords Christs as Types of Christ yet no man might take the Name Christ as an ordinary Name to be called by without horrible blasphemy Mat 24.23.24 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 Fathâ—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 affiâ—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 râ—pelâ—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 T is 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 t is no communication of it Your quotation of Vrsinus 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 not the usurpation in that sense but our impropriation of it in the highest Fourthly Because the Name above every Name was given to our Saviour at his exaltation according to the plaine words of the Text. But the Name Iesus was given to him in the beginning of his humiliation To answer here that give signifieth to advance I reply it is not agreeable to the sense of this word in oâ—her Scriptures and it mars the phrase and sense of the Text here as I shall hereafter demonstrate 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 Fifthly Because Iesus was advanced after his Resurrection to be Lord and Christ Act. 2.36 And it is considerable that the Evangelists doe usually call him by the Name Iesus onely in the time of his humiliation But in the Epistles of the Apostles He is most commonly called Châ—ist not neere so often Iesus And when he is called Iesus it is very commonly with the addition of Lord or Christ as Lord Iesus or Iesus Christ or both together the Lord Iesus Christ An argument that Lord and Christ be Titles of his honour and so cannot be lesse eminent than the Name Iesus 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 inconsideâ—at y venâ—ed by you Because there he is more often called by the Nâ—mâ— Jesus then any other Name After his resurrection in the 4. Evaâ—g lists 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 Sixthly It is against the Scriptures to preferre the Name Iesus above other divine Titles because God in subjecting all things to Christ did yet except himselfe 1 Cor. 15.27 And when the Scriptures doe enter into particulars Christs Name is specified to be advanced onely above created Names as above Angels 1 Pet. 3.21 above Kings Psal 87.27 above Prophets Heb. 3.3 above Priests Heb. Chapters 7 8 9 10. above all other creatures and things Heb. 2.8 His name is never preferred aâ—ove Gods Name 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
Steven cals upon Christ personally and distinctly Act. 7.59 So doth S. Paul upon the Father Ephes 3.14 And the distinct Names of each Person doe not personally denote the other Persons as when I say J beleeve in God the Father I doe not in that Article say I beleeve in God the Sonne If then these men say that they honour every Person alike personally at the Name Jesus which they must say if they say any thing they confound the Persons For the Person of the Father is not in the Person of the Sonne nor the Person of the Sonne in the Person of the Father c. but the Persons are distinguished Every Person is in one Divine Essence and the whole Essence in every Person Therefore the Name Iesus being a proper Name to the second Person and not the Name of the first or third Person cannot denominate but onely the second Person And it is plaine that the Name above every Name in the Text is onely proper to the second Person because the second Person onely was humbled therefore the second Person onely received this Name 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 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 From whence I argue looke as the Sonne is personally honoured so must the Father be But the Sonne is personally honoured by bowing at his Name Ergo So must the Father be Or the Father is not personally honoured by bowing at his Name Therefore the Sonne must not be so honoured I grant that the honour of the Sonne is essentially the honour of all the three Persons because every Person is the selfesame God according to Ioh. 5.24 But here the Question is of the Persons not of the Essence But let us reason from the Essence it makes against them They that honour the Sonne as they honour the Father must so honour the Sonne in the Father as they honour the Father in the Sonne But when they honour the Sonne in the Father they do not bow at the Name of the Father Therefore when they honour the Father in the Sonne they must not bow at the Name of the Sonne for if they doe how doe they honor the Sonne as they honour the Father 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 SECTION X. GOd will not require that duty of any of his creatures to whom he hath not created power of performance I say created to prevent an Objection But if corporall bowing at the Name Iesus be injoyned of God to all the creatures he should require that of the most of his creatures to whom he hath not created power of performance Therefore it is none of Gods injunctions The first part of the Argument cannot be denied without blasphemy by imputing cruelty to Almighty God 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
is answered that the Name Iesus is a common Name to every Person in Trinitie and therefore though it be above other Divine Names yet it doth not make inequality betweene the Persons and in bowing at that onely they honour all alike Now thus they goe about to prove their Assertion God say they was called Saviour before Christ was incarnate and Iesus and Saviour is all one therefore the Name Iesus denominates every Person of the Trinitie First I reply If Saviour Iesus be all one why then doe they not bow as well at the sound of Saviour as Iesus for their reason is the same for both Secondly I affirme that they are not all one the word Saviour indeed before Christ was incarnate shewed what God would doe in the fulnesse of time viz. send his Sonne to be our Redeemer but it is no proper Name Iesus is a proper Name never appropriated â—o the second Person till Christ was incarnate and some good Authors affirme that it is the Name of his humanitie onely because given him upon his Incarnation and he being called generally by that Name in the dayes of his flesh and sundry men being so called as Types of Christ though if it be so it doe denominate unto us his whole Person God and Man Sermon on Phil. 2. because of the inseperable union of the two natures But Bishop Andrewes assertion here is very strange who affirmes that the Name Iesus is the proper and chiefe Name of God but how can it be so when it is not the proper Name of Gods eternitie but was given unto the second Person in time by reason of mans fall But the Name Iehovah denotes Gods eternall Being and therefore is the proper and chiefe Name of God indeed And how doth the Bishop agree with himselfe in that place For thus he saith The Person is taken out of our sight all that we can doe cannot reach unto it but his Name he hath left behind to us that we may shew by our reverence and respect to it how much we esteeme him For if the Name Iesus doe denominate the Person of Christ as taken out of our sight then it denominates onely his humanitie which onely was in our sight for the Deitie was never in our sight But if it be true as he saith that Iesus is the proper Name of Christs Deitie then in this sense he is not gone from us but is with us alwayes unto the end of the world Mat. 28.20 and lives and dwells in the hearts of his Saints Eph. 3.17 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 shall not affirme that the Name of Jesus is a Name of the Humanitie onely If you be so inclined 't is 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 'T is 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 bâ—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 Secondly It is absurd to affirme that nothing we can doe can â—each to Christs Person because it is out of our sight by the same reason nothing that we doe can reach to God the Father or the Holy Ghost because they are invisible then farewell all Religion If nothing that we can doe can reach to Christs Person then the whole bowing can reach but to â—he Name none to the Person and to worship the Name without the Person is grosse Idolatry by their owne confession And how can these men affirme that they honour the Three Persons alike at the name Iesus when nothing they doe can reach to the Person of Christ Thirdly By the Bishops reason if we must bow at the Name of our Saviour because he is not present then we must not bow at the name Iesus which name saith he signifieth the Deitie which is alwayes present but at the name Christ which saith he though without ground is the name of the humanitie onely which is gone from us 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 Secondly If Iesus be the proper and chiefe name of God then should all those that were called ordinarily by that name besides Christ be called by the proper and chiefe name of God which without horrible blasphemy could not be yeelded unto It is Anti-christs impietie to call himselfe God 2 Thes 2.9 Yet worthy men
were called Iesus and never tooke any offence at it and were never blamed for it Seeing then the name Iesus was given to the Second Person onely upon his Incarnation it cannot be the proper and chiefe name of God or of every Person in Trinitie and it no where denominates any other Person but the Second Person onely therefore it is a name peculiar to the Second Person onely 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 'T is 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 'T was 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 his Name Iehovah unto Moses did from being the greatest Nâ—me unto the Iewes And that it doth denominate the second Person onely is by Dispensation onely Lastly This answer overthrowes their owne ground from the Text for if the name Iesus be the name of the Three Persons then cannot it be the name above every name in the Text for that Name is proper onely to the Sonne For first God gave him this Name and that after his humiliation therefore was it not a name naturally inherent in him as a Person of the Trinitie because he had it not before Secondly the Person onely in the Text that suffered received this Name but neither the Person of the Father nor the Holy Ghost suffered but the Sonne onely Therefore neither the Father nor Holy Ghost received the Name above every Name but the Sonne 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 I le 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 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 Vnionis 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 SECTION IV. BVt the reason is naught why they preferre the name Iesus above other Divine names for signification sake because it signifieth our Salvation For who taught them to reason thus have they received it from the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles If they have they must shew where It is abominable to teach for a doctrine the fantasie of the braine but there is no shew nor shaddow for this reason punctually in this Text or any other Scripture This is answer sufficient but by Gâ—ds grace I will further encounter with it and shall prove it a reason without reason indeed and to be of a very fearefull and dangerous consequence 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 Nâ—me for signification prefer'd Matth. 1.21 Thou shalt call his Name Iesus Why For he shall save his 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. 'T is 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 First If we must bow at the name Iesus because it signifieth our salvation then we must rather bow at the name Christ because this Name doth more fully and expressely signifie our Salvation than the Name Iesus now these Iesu-worshippers doe not bow at the name Christ Thus saith learned Visinus Catechis p. 202. Iesus est proprium nomen Mediatoris c. Iesus saith he is the prope name of our Mediator Christ as it were the Sirname For so is he Iesus that so he is also Christ i. e. a promised Saviour and Messias By both names his Office is designed but by the Name more summarily than expressely by the Sirname more cleerely and expressely for the Sirname Christ doth denote the three certaine parts of his Office as namely Propheticall Priestly and Kingly I will illustrate this further by this Simile If we should heare of some Potent King that he is become a great Conquerour hath atchieved a noble Victory and hath made a great conquest of his enemies and hath wrought a great deliverance to his Subjects this newes indeed is something but yet this generall relation doth
to the Father by mentioning of the Name Iesus onely as bow to the Father at the mentioning of this Name onely 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 'T is 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 CONCLVSION I will shut up all with this Argument drawne from the Premises EVery Exposition of a Text which doth advance the Glory of God and of Christ and doth cleere the Truth without any ambiguitie and absurdity is to be preferred before such an exposition which derogateth from the Glory of God and of Christ and produceth many ambiguities and dangerous absurdities But this exposition of Phil. 2.9.10 To understand Name above every Name given to Christ of the Power Glory and Dominion of Christ above all creatures and things created Powers Dignities and Dominions Gods Name and Power onely excepted and to understand bowing of every knee in the Name of Iesus of the subjection of every creature thing dominion and power to the Glory Power and Dominion of the Lord Iesus advanceth the Glory of God and of Christ and cleeres the Truth without any ambiguitie and absurditie But on the other side To expound Name above every Name in the Text of the advancement of the Name or Title Iesus either absolutely or relatively above not onely all created Names but also above all Divine Names and Titles and secondly to understand bowing every knee of things in heaven things in earth and things under the earth in the Name of Iesus of bowing of expresse corporall knees when the Name Iesus is sounded out These expositions doe obscure the Text doe deface the Glory of God and of Christ and produce many dangerous Consequences and absurdities Therefore the fotmer interpretation of the said Text is to be preferred before the other yea is true when the other is false 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 which you pretend to follow the second were as you produced them â—epelled in order And now the false acontâ—â— which you have given shall â— under the particulars of your charge apâ—eaâ—e The dangerous Consequences which the second opinion doth produce are noted in the Premises to be these Answer IN the first and second part untill you came unto the foot dolose latebas you covered your selfe with all the Sophistrie you and your friends could make Here in the close aperte saevis your rage is open With what before you vainely supposed you now most impiously charge the Church And so impudently that had I answered all your reasons with no I would have said to your absurdities nothing For the very recitation of them is sufficient refutation But there are a sort that looke onely at the head and foot or having seene the Front and Rere care not though the body be of Puppets To make them more warie I have broken your forces hither and will not desist till these Vipers heads that eate their way out of the mothers sides be crushed under my feet 1. In respect of the whole Trinitie 1. IT confoundeth the Persons of the Trinitie Part 1. Sect. 9. Part 1. Sect. 1. 2. It will make all Names and Titles of the Trinitie and Deitie as Lord God Christ Iehovah Father Holy Ghost to bow knees to the Name Jesus Answer 1. Bowing at the Name is the evident token that not seperating 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 2. In respect of God the Father Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 20. 1. It makes him inferiour to his Sonne and to bow to his Sonne 2. It accuseth him of crueltie and injustice in appoynting such a worship to most of his Creatures in whom he hath not created Power of performance Part 1. Sect. 13. 3. It maketh him to regard things of lesse importance and to neglect the weightier Answer 1. 'T was 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 3. In respect of God the Sonne Part 1. Sect. 12. 1. It attributes unto him a Name which they say is above every Name yet without power and authoritie making it onely the proper Name Iesus which others had as well as he Part 2. Sect. 5. 2. It overthroweth the dutie of the Text to Angells Devils and Reprobates or else it will make Christ a Saviour to them yea it will make
Christ a Saviour to Hell sinne death and the Grave which must bow as well as other things as appeares by the Premises Part 1. Sect. 12. 3. It deprives Christ of the honour of the most of his creatures which cannot possibly performe the Text as they understand it so that it makes Christ Lord but of a few of the creatures who is Lord of all 4. For those that can performe it Part 1. Sect. 12. it gives to Christ the honour onely of one part of the body when he will be honoured with the whole body and soule so that it makes him Lord but of the knee onely 5. It gives him this honour but one day in the weeke ordinarily Part 1. Sect. 12. and that but now and then in that day and but in one place ordinarily when he will be served at all times and places So that it makes Christ Lord but for the space of a few minutes in one day of the weeke and that but in one place 6. It depriveth Christ of his true Subjects Part 1. Sect. 12. and forceth upon him the members of Antichrist 7. Part 1. Sect. 12. It depriveth Christ of his honour and glory at the great Day of Iudgement and makes his Kingdome in the height of it to be extreamly ridiculous 8. It advanceth the Sonne above the Father Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 9. 9. It giveth greater honour to the Sonne than to the Father and so maketh inequalitie betweene the Persons of the Trinitie 10. It attributeth our salvation either to the bare Name Jesus Part 2. Sect. 3. and so it is flat Idolatry or else it divideth Christ from himselfe making Iesus and Christ two Persons and from Iehovah making him not God or above God and so it is flat blasphemie 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 â—rees have no eares 4. It is a token of the whole mans obedience within and â—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 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 4. In respect of God the Holy Ghost Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 11. 1. It makes him inferiour to the Second Person 2 It brings his worke into bondage at the will of man yea sometimes of vile men 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 5. Concerning the Church Part 1. Sect. 11. It gives her authoritie over Gods Word 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 6. Concerning our selves 1. It brings us into bondage Part 1. Sect. 11. by making us to perform Gods worship at every mans pleasure and so it enthralls Gods worship to everie mans will 2. It makes the Church a perpetuall prison Part 1. Sect. 11. and the bowing of the knee never to be ended 3. It makes us to respect our owne benefit more than Gods Glory Part 2. Sect. 6. Part 1. Sect. 8 4. It makes us to serve Christ more corruptly than Devils and Repâ—obates 5. Part 2. Sect. 6. It will make the Saints at the day of Iudgement worse than Idolaters These dangerous and for the most part blasphemous Consequences besides many other senslesse absurdities doe necessarily arise from this opinion therefore it is insufferable and not to be endured 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 't is 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 I have done and for your hard-hard Censure of us tell you that if your Booke come not to a violent end God hath permitted bonis male evenisse evill to betyde the good I left with the first Part of your Booke the beginning of an Ode and I will with this â—orat Car. l. 3. â— 2. the end of another Saepe Diespiter Neglectus incesto addidit integrum Raro antecedentem scelestum Deseruit pede poena claude 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ERRATA PAge 2. line 23. reade fine p. 4. l. 33. r. Mascall p. 7. l. 17. r. avowe l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 16. l. 39. r. opposita r. ibid. Oeconomicall p. 18. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. l. 31. r. justice p. 27. l. 17. r. our p. 31. l. 9. r. yâ—u p. 34. l. 21. r. amated l. 25. r. Parâ—shioners p. 38. l. 15. r. â—bscuras Scripturas l. 18. r. Nay all p. 41. l. 34. r. take p. 43. l. 15. r. insanit Egidius p. 90. l. 36. r. called Jehovah p 98. l. 7. r. divisa
this Argument are these three yet none of them sufficient in my judgement First it is said that the ground and rule above-specified holds between Christ and the Angels and so it will hold betweene Christ and all the rest of the creatures where â—here is a manifest difference but it will not hold betweene the Persons of the Trinitie because they are equall and cannot bee made unequall This answer is very frivolous For the Apostle gives this reason why Christ is better then the Angels viz. because he had oâ—tained a better Name than they which argument had beene weake and uncertaine and he could never have made good what he affirmed if his ground and rule could ever have failed A true rule is a perfect rule or no rule at all 2. True it is that it is indeed impossible that the three Persons should be made unequall yet may one be preferred before or under valued beneath another by some mens opinion or practise For as Arrius under valued the Sonne beneath the Father in that he attributed unto him a Name below the Name of the Father And as we prove against Arrius that Christ is God equall with the Father because of the identitie and samenesse and equalitie of his names and attributes with the Father being called Iehovah Sonne of God called omniscient eternall c. So it will be evidently proved by necessary consequence against these men that hold that opinion howsoever they positively deny it that they are in some degree in an extreame with Arrius preferring Christ above the Father because they attribute unto him a Name greater than the Name of the Father 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 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 't was 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-eâ—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 â—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 Secondly They answer that the second Person though of himselfe he be equall with the Father yet in respect of us he is greater because of the worke of redemption which he hath wrought for us I reply This is a strange answer and very unsound for First the Scriptures doe every where as much extoll the love of God in giving his Sonne as the love of Christ in giving himselfe Secondly This answer doth not agree with the Text for the Text injoyneth the bowing therein not onely to us men but generally to all creatures over whom Christs Name is advanced for therefore is every knee of every thing to bow to Christ because he having a Name above every Name hath also a Name above their Names Therefore if the Sonne have a Name above his Fathers Name by the same reason the Father must bow to the Sonne Thirdly By this answer they contradict themselves for when they be challenged that in bowing at the Name Iesus onely they honour the Sonne above the Father they deny it and affirme that they honour all alike at the Name Iesus which indeed they cannot affirme if the second Person be greater to us than the other Persons then we to whom he is greater must honour him more than the other that to us are not so great Even as to the supreme Magistrate in a Kingdome we give a greater honour than to those that to us are not so great as he 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 subjâ—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 Thirdly Thus it