CERTAINE QVAERES propounded to the Bowers at the NAME OF IESVS and to the Patrons thereof Wherein the Authorities and Reasons alleadged by Bishop Andrewes and his Followers in defence of this Ceremony are briefly examined and refuted the Mistranslation of Phil. 2.10.11 cleared and that Text with others acquitted both from commanding or authorizing this Novell Ceremony here gived to be unlawfull in sundry respects Colossians 2.8 Beware lest any man spoyle you through Philosophie and Vaine deceit after the tradition of men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ Mathew 15.9 But in vaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the Commandements of men Isaiah 1.12 When ye come to appeare before me who hath required this at your hand Brentius in Levit. c. 17. Hypocritae observantes Sacra sine Verbo Dei instituta tunc pessimi sunt hoc est peccatores homicidae cum sibi optimi religiosissimi videntur The fourth Edition corrected In the Yeare M.DC.XXXVI The Publisher to the Reader CHristian Reader the strang violent late proceedings both of our High Commissions in their Commission Courts and of our Bishops and their Visitors in their unwarrantable Visitations upon Canons Oathes and Articles of their owne forging printed on their owne Names without any commission at all from his Majesty under his great Seale contrary to the statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19.21.26 H. 8. c. 1.31 H. c. 26.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Ed. 6. c. 2.1 Eliz. c. 1.2.5 Eliz. c. 1.8 Eliz. c. 1.13 Eliz c. 12. with other statutes and to their owne 12. Canon Yea contrary to the statute of Magna Charta c. 19. and the late Petition of Right now layd a sleepe hath occasioned me to sett forth another impression of these Quaeres wherein all the whole controversie concerning the Bowing of the name of Iesus in time of Divine service and sermon is summarily Discussed which Quaeres I would desire our Commissioners Bishops and Visitors to resolve and Answer in a satisfactory manner which yet they have not done before they violently without Law reason or lawfull authority silence suspend present excommunicate fine deprive or imprison any of their Fellow-Brethren or vex any of his Majesty Subjects as they have of late molested many either for omitting or speaking against this Ceremony It is the duty of all good Prelates first to instruct and informe mens consciences and judgment with the spirit of meeknesse in such Ceremonies which they have good cause to deeme unlawfull for them to use before they urge them with violence to the practice of them or rigidly proceed against them in judgment for omitting them This they have not hitherto sufficiently done in case of this much urged Ceremony pressing it only by Club-law without reason or moderation Let them therefore now satisfie these their weake Brethrens Quaeres if they can or else cease to molest them or urge this Ceremony longer if they cannot doe it since their great Guide Bishop Andrewes though in other things famous for his learning and Iudgement is doubles miserablie mistaken in this particular and can noe longer patronize either his owne or this their cause as these Quaeres will demonstrate having so oft times passed abrode in print without resolution Vale. A PREFACE FOr the better clearing of this ceremony to be no duty of this text of Phil. 2.10.11 be pleased in briefe to take notice of these foure particulars First what the Fathers whom Mr. Page confesseth not to bee for this ceremony generally interpret to be the name above every name mentioned in this text Very many of thē interpret it to be nothing else but the very name of God and Deity of Christ it selfe So Tertullian de Trinitate lib. Tom. 2. p. 261.262 Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi Contr. Apollinarium p. 271. C. Hilary in Psa. 2. p. 196 H Ambrose Rabanus Maurus Iohn Salisburie on Phil. 2.9 10. Dionysius Alexandrinus Epist. Contr. Paulum Samosatenum Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. p. 74.75 Titus Bostrensis in cap. 1. Evang. Lucae Ibid. Tom. 4. p. 339. E. Idacius advers Varimadum lib. Ibid. p. 622. a. Caesarij Dialog 1. p. 650. Basilius Magnus de Spiritu Sancto ad Amphil. c. 8. Tom. 1. p. 180. Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Esayam l. 5. Tom. 1. p. 362. E.F. in Ioannis Evang. l. 11. c. 17. p. 666. c. 20. p. 669. a. c. 22. p. 670. D.E. Thesauri l. 13. Tom. 2. p. 270. E.F. Agobardus ad Ludovicum Imp. Bibl. Patrum Tom. 9. pars 1. p. 556. g. h. Paschatius Ratbertus in Matth. Evan. lib. 10. Ibid. pars 2. p. 1156. b. c. lib. 11. p. 1177. b. Exposit. in Psal. 44. p. 1249. G. Ioannis Cyperis de Inform. divini nominis cap. 11. Ibid. Tom. 11. p. 499. E. Paulus Aquiliensis Patr. Cont. Felicem Vrgelium Epist. l. 2. Aquinas 3 part qu. 49. Art 6. Conclusio Alexander Alensis Theol. Summa pars 1. qu. 21. m. 1. Artic. 4. together with Chytraeus Postil in Domin Palmarum pag. 160 Zanchius in Phil. 2.9 10. and other moderne Expositors Other Fathers and Writers interpret it to be the name of the onely naturall begotten Sonne of God Thus Hierom Theodoret Sedulius Remigius Beda Haymo Theophylact Anselme and Oecumenius on Phil. 2.10 11. Basil de Spirit Sancto c. 8 Tom. 1. p. 180. Augustine Contr Maximinum l. 2. c. 2. Sancti Procli Sermo in Transfig Christi Bibl. Patr. Tom. 1. pars 1. p. 536. C. Etherij Beati l. 1. Ibid. Tom. 8. p. 342. Musculus Aretius Zanchius with other late Expositors Others interpret this name to bee nothing else but the Glory Fame Lordship Soveraignty and universal dominion and Majesty of Christ. So Chrysostom Theodoret in Phil 2. Petrus Blesensis Serm. 46. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 11. pars 1. p. 210. C. and others of old Olevian Musculus Gualther Marlorat Dr. Ayray Bishop Babington and the whole streame of moderne interpriters Others refer this text to his name Christ as Paschatius Ratbertus Exposit. in Psal. 44. pag. 1246. g. Paulinus Epist. ad Augustinū Bibl. Patr. Tom 5. pars 1. p. 210. e Secondly What they meane by bowing the knee Not any actuall bowing of the knee in this life at the sound sight or hearing of the Name Iesus but a Vniversall subjection of all creatures to the Soveraigne Lordship judicature and supreme power of Christ especially at the day of judgement when this text shall be onely actually litterally and really fulfilled This all the Fathers and Writers quoted in the Appendix Lame Giles and premises and all the Authors extant that I have seene accord to bee the genuine true undoubted meaning Bishop Andrewes Dr. Boyes and Mr. Page himselfe confessing it Thirdly To what this bowing must be given by the Fathers verdict Not to the name Iesus but immediately to Christ himselfe Hence Hierom Com. l. 3. in Isayam 45. Gregory Nyssen de Anima Resurrect disp p. 104.212 Ambros. Enar. in Psal. 118. Octon 20. Hilari de Trinitate lib.
ad pag. 36. l. thing r. Church pag. 37. l. 7. 4. r. 1. l 15. Matth. 28. p. 39. l. 19.3 r. 31. pag. 40 l. 16 here r. whereâ— p. 41. l. 6. the râ— thiâ— to it to In the margin p. 4 l. â—3 r. Phil. p. 10. l. 12. Vshers p. 21. lâ— 6. Har. 28. p. 16. l. 40. r. Turonense l. 4. r. Pro. lâ— 42. r. Cent. cirâ—a orationem pag. 18. l. 7. inferred r. referred p. 20. l. 40. r. Molanus l. 41. r. Horae c. Hist. l. 40. r. secundum usum Sarum p. 21. l. 39. r. Spec. f. Brige r. Being p. 24. l. blot out 3. Henâ—â— 2. c. Iurisdictionâ— pag. 38. l. 38. curvabâ—tur l. 40. r. conâ—itebitur p. 39. l 20. râ— inimiciâ— l. 34. Simeon Omission pag. 24. l. 8. r. bonnet at the naming of Iesus Certaine QVAERES propounded to the Bowers at the name of IESVS and to the Patrons thereof WHether the Text of the Phil. 2.9.10.11 on which they grounde this Ceremony or will-worship bee not in the judgment of all Divines both auncient and moderne a Prophesy of the joynt subjection of all Angells Saynts Divells and Reprobates to the supreame Lordship and dominion of Christ Not now in the Church in time of Divine Service and Sermons but hereafter when they shall all appeare before Christs Tribunall to be judged by him taken out of that Prophesy of Isay. 45. 23. As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bowe to me c. and expresly interpreted of and applyed to the day of Iudgment by S. Paule himselfe Rom. 14.9.10.11 By S. Iohn Revel 5. n. 12.13.14 Chap. 7.11.12 Iohn 5.22 23 27 28 29. And by Christ himselfe Math. 20.5 31 32 33 34 37 41 44 46. And Chap. 7.21 22 23. And whether this be a good inference All knees of things in heaven earth and under the earth shall submitte and bow to Christ before his Tribunall in the day of Iudgment as to their supreame Lord and Iudge Therefore all men and women ought now to bow their knees or put of their hatts when ever they heare the name Iesus mentioned in the Church in time of divine Service and Sermon The sole argument that can properly be deducted from this Text to justify this practice Whether the Originall be not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In not At the name of Iesus And this phrase thus Englished and translated in all other places of the Bible Whether all the Greeke and Latine Fathers whatsoever doe not thus render it In not at the name And all English Translations too as Wickliffs Purviâ—s Tyndalls Coverdalls Mathewes The Bishops Bible sett forth in the 2. Yeare of Queene Elizabeth used in all Churches during her Raigne And since till the last Tranâ—lation 1614. Erasmus Paraphrase All our ancient English writers and the Common Prayer Booke it selfe In the Epistle on Palme Sunday till M. Cozens corrupted it in the yeare 16â—9 by turning In into At without any lawfull authority and causing it to bee since so printed Except the Geneva translation only which mistaking M. Bâ—za whom the Translator followed rendred his Ad nomen to the name At â—he name whether the last Englâ—sh Translation which the Translators themselves rendred In the name according to the Originall and all former authorized English Translations but the Geneva which King Iames condemned as the worst of all and enjoyned the Translators not to followe was not counted by Bishop Andrewes As some on good grounds report who without their privity altered In into At the name when the Coppy was fitted for the Presse of purpose to contemne this Ceremony for which he had preached Else it had bene printed In not At the name as the Translators truly Englished it and as the same phrase is ever translated by them in all other places throughout the Bible which had overâ—throwen this his pretended duty of the text Whether this Translation of At for Iâ— the name doth not marre both the sâ—nce and English of the Text and make it no sence If any man should translate I beleeve in God I beleeve at God Our Father which art in heaven Our Father which art at heaven Whatsoever you shall aske in my name Whatsoever you shall aske at my name I baptize thee in the name of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost I baptize thee at the name of the Father c. Goe to God in my name Goe to God at my name In the name of the Lord I will destroye them At the name of the Lord I will destroy them Pray to God in the name of Christ Pray to God at the name of Christ Mary kept all these sayings in her hart Shee kept all these sayings at her hart and the like It would marr both the English and sence and prove no better then non sence And doth it not the like here there being noe such phrase as At the name to be founde in any other Text of Scripture or any English Author but in this place alone The changinge of which In into At here making the bowing in the name To witt in the Soverraigne Lordship and Power of Christ to be nothing else but a bowing at the naming of Iesus in time of divine Service or Sermons contrary to the scope of this place How the name Iesus imposed on our Saviours Humanity only at his Circumcision and not given to his Deitie but to his humane nature in the very beginninge of his humiliation Math. 1.21 25. c. 2. 1. Luke 1.31 c. 2. 21. Acts 4.27 Cann truly be said to be the name above every name given him after his Resurrection and exaltation As the name in this Text of the Philippians was and to be the true cheefe yea proper name of God and of Christs Divinity As the Patrons of this Ceremony affirme And how this they say can be proved Whether the name Saviour which is given to God himselfe Psal. 106.21 Isay 43. 11. Chap. 45.15.22 Ier. 14.8 Hosea 13.4 be the very same with Iesus And as venerable as comfortable yea as much the name of God as it is not as is most evident they differing in words in use in all languages the one being a Christen name imposed at his circumcision the other a Title or Surname and both if them oft coupled together in Scripture as in these texts A Saviour which is Iesus Iesus our Saviour c. which were a tautologia being one and the same Then why doe the Patrons of this Ceremony make them one and the same The one of them to wit the name of Saviour being attributed to God the Father as well as to Christ the other onely to Christ not to God the Father who was never called Iesus But often Saviour If so Then why doe they not teach that men ought to bow at the name of Saviour aswell as at the name of Iesus The rather Because Saviour though it be not the same that Iesus is in Letters sound or use the
and names of each person in the Trinity which are proper and incommunicable one to the other where as the essence and name of the Deitie are common to each three persons Which were heresie and Blasphemy to affirme yea the very heresie of Nestorious condemned in the Councell of Ephesus Whether it be not heresie to say that Christ is not God nor the name Christ the name of God it beeing directly contrary to Rom. 9.5 Christ who is over all God blessed for ever Amen To Athanasius his Creede And the second Article of Religion of the Church of England Which say that God and man is one Christ Contrary to the Doctrine of all Orthodox Fathers and Writers against the Aâ—â—iâ—ns who unanimously averre that Christ is God Yea contrary to Titus 2. 13. Lookinge for that blessed hope and the glorious appearinge of the greate God and our Saviour Iesus Christ Where Christ is not only called God But the greate God and to the Booke oâ— Common Prayer which injoines us thus to pray CHRIST have mercie upon us O CHRIST heare us From our enemies defend us O CHRIST c. And to say Thou only O CHRIST with the holy Ghost art most high in the glory of God the Father All which passages expresly resolve Christ to be God and the name of God else we should not thus pray unto him as God Whether this be not a falshood that God cannot be annointed as annointing signifies a designation to an office Since Christ both as he is God and Man was designed to be a Saviour and since we reade thus of Christs annointinge Psal. 45.7 Therefore God thy God hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse aboue thy fellowes Which the Fathers thus interpret O God the Sonne Thy God to witt God the Father hath annointed thee with the oyle of gladnesse to witt with the holy Ghost Acts. 10.38 Heb. 1.8.9 Whence S. Augustine Beda Paschatius Raâ—berâ—us with sundry others on the 44. our 45. Psalme write thus Dâ—us ungitur a Deo c. God is annointed by God God the Sonne by God the Father with God the holy Ghost And whether this be not an error That Christ is not the name of God nor of our Saviours Divinity but of his humanity only Where as Irenâ—us advers Heres l. 3. c. 20. Athanasius in his Declaration Quod Christus sit verus Dâ—us that Christ is true God P. 377. therefore this name of Christ the name of God Nazianzen in his 5. Oration p. 167. B. With Elias Cretensis on that place Damascen Orthodoxae fidei l. 3. c. 3. p. 365. with Clichtonius in his Commentary on that place p. 366. And Aquinas 3. parte Quaest 16. Art 5. Quaest. 17. Art 1. expressly resolve That Christ is called Christ in respect of his Divinity That Christ is the name both of his Divinity and Humanity In which are expressed and comprized both his Divinity annointing and his Humanity annointed And that he could not be called Christ if he were only man this name beinge predicated of both his natures and given to him in respect of both If this proposition be true That Iesus is the proper name of God and that God cannot be annointed and so Christ not the name of God as Bishop Andrewes argues How can this agree with Acts. 4.27 Thy holy Childe Iesus whom thou hast annointed c. And Acts. 10.38 How God annointed Iesus of Nazareth with the holy Ghost and with power Or with that of Tertullian to omitt other Fathers adversus Prazean p. 709. Siue Iesus tantummodo positum est intelligitur Christus quia Iesus unctus est sive solummodo Christus idem est Iesus quia unctus est Iesus Either Iesus therefore must not be the proper name of God but the name only of Christs humanity as Beda Anselme Alcuninus Aquinas teach us who say that Iesus est proprium nomen assumpâ—ae carnis Iesus is the proper name of Christs assumed humanity And Hoc nomen Iesus signiâ—icat solam naturam humanam This name Iesus signifies only the humane nature And so by the Bishops owne Doctrine we must not bow unto it because it is not the name of God or Christs Divinity but of his humanity only as these Fathers teach Or else this proposition God cannot be annointed must be false because these two Texts expressly say that Iesus as Iesus was annointed And themselves confesse that Iesus as Iesus is God And so God may be annointed And then Christ will prove the name of God aswell as Iesus notwithstanding the Bishops reason and be therefore of right to be bowed unto aswell as it by the Bishops owne arguinge if it be solid Whether that Text of Acts. 4.12 Neither is there salvation in any other for there is none other name under heaven given among men wâ—ereby we must be saved be meant of the name Iesus As if men were saved by it alone or only of the Peâ—son of Christ as the 10.11 verses and the very first words Neither is there salvation in any other with the Contents of our Bibles that by the same Iâ—sus only we must be eternally saved and all Oâ—â—hodox Intâ—â—preters expounde it If of the name Iesus only As the Patrons of this Ceremony glosse it How then can they be excused from Blasphemy in attributing our Salvation unto the bare name of Iesus which we receive only from his person and Merits which make him a Saviour and purchased him the Title of Jesus Matth. 1.21 Acts. 13.23 Or how will it follow hence There is noe other name under heaven whereby we must be saved but the name Iesus though not expressed in the Text Eâ—go we must bow aâ— and to this name as oft as we heare it mentioned in the Church If of the person only as is most true why then doe they abuse this Text yea that place in Ps. 95.6 O come let uâ— worship and fall downe and kneel before the Lord our Maker not Iesus or Saviour being writen long before our Saviours Nativity or the name Iesus was given him and so not meant of it in applying it meerely to the name Iesus to cause simple people to adore it when as it speakes of the person only If the name of Iesus be thus to be bowed to and at Why then bow they not to it when they see it written printed carved paynted or ingraven as well as when they heare it why bow they not at the sight thereof as well as at the sounde why not out of the Church as well as in the Church Since Salmeron the Iesuite teacheth them That this name whether it be pronounced with the mouth or heard with the eare or where ever it is written painted or ingraven is worthy divine worship not for the bare word wriâ—ing or picture it selfe but for the signification of it as the Crosse and Image of Christ
have proper to our Saviour Christ might easily have admonished them of the insufficiency of this Service And seeing the name of Iesus in the Sonne of Nun and in the High-Priest of that name of whom onely wee are assured that they were rightly thus called is the same with the name ascribed unto Christ wee see not by whaâ— reason honour may be withdrawne from the one which is given to the other especially considering they had not this title of Iesus in their owne right but in the right of Christ whose figures and lively representations they were And if others might withhould it yet you which give the same honour to the Image which you give to the thing it selfe cannot be conceived so to doe What will you answere to this that as you are in danger of superstition in the former point so in this you are charged with profanenesse who neither capp nor knee at the name of Jesus out of the thing when the name is the same and as well to be honoured without as within the Church Which Service you profane in the Crosse whereunto you doe honour or homage as well when it standeth in the feild as when it is erected in the Church or Chancells To your other reason that in reverence wee uncover our heades at the name of Princes Wee answere that if it were so the civill honoâ—r is not tyed to such strict lawes as is the Divine therefore there is greater freedome of choice in the one than in the other And it is knowne what is sayd of civill honour that it rather standeth on the wil and judgement of the Giver than of the Taker which is cleane contrary in the honour of God which dependeth on the pleasure and commandement of him that taketh it not of him that giveth it Thus farre M. Cartwright To him I shall annexe that late learned and reverend Divine Doctor Henry Aâ—ray Provost of Queenes Colleidge in Oxford who upon this text of the Philippians writeth thus And hath given him a Name c. Where wee are not to understand that God gave unto Christ after his resurrection any new Name which hee had not before For as before so after and as after so before hee was and is called the Wisedome of God the Power of God the true Light of the world Faithfull and true Holy and just the Apostle and High-Priest of our profession a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech the Saviour of the World the Prince of Peace the Mediatour of the new covenant the Head of the Church the Lord of Glory Iesus Christ the Sonne of the Father the Sonne of God and God Neither had hee any name after his resurrection which he hath not before But by a name in this place is to be understood Gloâ—y and Honour and Dominion and Majesty and Power ouer all things created as the same word is elsewher used as Ephes. 4 21. So that when it is sayd God hath given him a name above every name The meaning is that God having raised up Christ Iesus from the dead hath so highly exalted him in the heavenly places thath he hath given him all Power both in Heaven and Earth all Dominion over all creatures whatsoever and the same glory which he hath with him from the Beginning so that now he raigneth and ruled with him King over all and blessed for ever Which hee there proves and paralells with Heb. 2 9. Ephes. 1 20.21 Iohn 17 5. Matth. 18.18 and then concludeâ— thus To knitt up all in a word Christ God and Man after his resurrection was crowned with glory and honour even such as plainely shewed him to be God There to rule and raigne as soveraigne Lord and King till he came in the clouds to judge both quick and dead After which hee proceeds in these wordes Where by the name of Iesus wee are not to understand the bare name of Iesus as though it had the vertue in it to drive away Divells or as though at the very sound of it all were to bowe their knees For at the name of Saviour which is the same with Iesus none boweth and tâ—e name of Christ Emanuell of the Sonne of God of God which are names no lesse precious and glorious than is the name of Iesus True it is that bowing at the name of Iesus is a custome which had been much used and may without offence be retained when the minde is free from supeâ—stition But to bow and kneele at the very sound of the name when wee only heare the name of Iesus sounding in our eares but know not what the name meaneth savoureth of superstition By bowing the knee the Apostle heer meaneth that subjection which all creatures ought continually to performe and which all creatures shall performe to Christ in that day some unwillingly and to their confusion as the Divells and wicked men their instruments for so the Lord by his Prophet useth the same phrase of speach where hee sayth Every knee shall bow to mee that isâ— shall be subject to mee and worshipp mee Here then is a duty prescribed necessary to be performed of every Christian which is to glorify him who is exalted in the highth of glory both in our bodies and in our Soules to worship him with holy worship to subject our selves to him in all obedience unto his heavenly will For worthy is the Lambe that was killed to receive all power and wisedome and strength and honour and praise and glory The Angels in heaven they glorify the name of Iesus in that they are allwayes ready to execute his will and doe whatsoever hee commandeth them This also is that holy worshipp wherewith wee ought to worshipp him and to glorify his name even to be Hearers and Doers of his will in his word to obey his will to walke in his Lawes and to keepe his commandements not the bare and outward capping and kneeing of the name Iesus but principally obedience to his will that is named is the honour which here hee accepteth of us For as not every one that sayeth Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome of heaven So not every one that boweth at the name of Iesus shall enter into his Kingdome but hee that doth â—is will and walketh in his wayes Saul when hee was send to slay the Amalekites thought to honour God greatly by sparing the best of the Sheepe and Oxen to sacrifice unto him But it was sayd unto him Hath the Lord as greaâ— pleasure in burnt offerings and Sacrifices as when his voyce is obeyed Behould to obey is better than sacrifice and to hearken is better than the fatt of Rames So you happly think you honour our blessed Saviour greatly when you bow your selves at every sound of his name but behould to obey his will is better than capping and kneeing and all outward Ceremonies whatsoever Yet mistake mee not I beseech you as though I thought that
are deservedly added with the worship of Latâ—ia for the type and mystery represented in and by them yea why bow and reverence they not it rather when they heare men dishonour and prosane it by cursing swearinge blaspheminge when it is most contemned vilified abused and so needes most honour and respect then when it is only religiously and reverently used and uttered in the Church without any irreverence contempt or dishonour offered to it And if bowing at the name Iesus in the Church be a meanes to keepe men from swearinge by it as some pretende Then the bowinge at it when men sweare should much more doe it yea then men should rather bow at the name of God than Iesus Since that name is more abused by swearinge and cursing then Iesus Whether these words of Bishop Andrewes and others He is exalted to whose person knees doe bow But he to whose name ONLY much more his person is taken out of our sight All that we can doe will not reach unto it But his name he hath left behinde to us that we may shâ—we by our reverence and respect to it how much we esteeme him be not contrary to Math. 28.20 Loe I am with you allwayes even to the ende of the World to Gal. 2.20 and Ephes. 3.17 Where Christ is said to live and dwell in us to the Bishops owne words who there immediately saith that his body and soule and these not without his Deitie are really present in the Sacrament and so his person and that Iesus is the proper and cheefe name of his Deitie which is ever present with us and not taken from us Whether they be not a meere Idolizing of the very name Iesus and a confining of this bowing only to his name not person Whether this speech and caution of his doe it to the sence have minde of him that is named and doe his name the honour and spare not be not a meere Idolatrous Popish passage borrowed by him from the Patrons of Image and Bread worship Whether Papists may not as lawfully adore and bow to Images Crucifixes the Hoste and the like as they or we may doe to the name of Iesus with this distinction and caution borrowed from them by the Bishops and by them from the Pagans in defence of their Idolls relative worship and adoring of the Image with a reference and eye to the person whom it represents And what difference is there betweene worship the name and the Crosse Host Crucifix or Image of Iesus which the Romish and other Papists make the same and conjoine together as one both in reason and verity Whether this Text of Philippians 2.10 11. doth not couple the bowinge of the knee and confession of the tounge that Iesus Christ is Lord together as duties equally to be performed at the same time and not to be dissevered If so as is most certaine Whether must not our Bowers every time they bow their knees heads bodies or stirre their Caps at the naminge of Iesus confesse likewise ad cry out aloude with their tounges that Iesus Christ is Lord Since the Text thus conjoines and requires them both alike Or else are they not infringers of this Text and precept for neglecting it Whether bowinge at the name of Iâ—sus only not of Saviour Christ Emanuel Sonne of God Kinge of Kings Lord of Lords God with other names and Titles of Christ doth not seeme to reviue the heresie of Cerâ—nthus That Iesus and Christ are two distinct persons and essences That Iesus is better then Christ yea then Saviour then Emanuel then Sonne of God Kinge of Kings Lord of Lords God c. That he is more honorable worshipfull and reverent as he is Iesus and when he is so stiled then as he is God and when he is so called or then when he is termed Saviour Christ Emanuel Sonne of God Lord Kinge and the like And whether learned Doctor Whitaker in his Answer to William Râ—ynolds the Rhemists Notes on Phil. 2.10 11. P. 398 399. writes not That the bowinge at the name of Iesus only and not at the name of Christ may ingender a more dangerous Error then any can remooue to witt thaâ— Iesus is better then Christ which is wicked to imagine Whether bowinge at the name of Iesus only not at the name of the Father or Holy Ghost to testifie Iesus to be God and the name of God Doth not make a kinde of disparity betweene the Three sacred persons of the Trinitie who are coaeternall together and coaequall in givinge more honour reverence adoration to the one then to the other and imply the Father and holy Ghost not to be God or so much God not to be so venerable so honorable as Iesus because their persons and names are not so much bowed to and adored as his If Three persons of equall dignity should be made the Kings Viceroy in any of his Dominions and all men should bow to Cappe and honour the persons and name of the one when ever it were mentioned but neglect to doe it when the other Two are named Would not this intimate One of them to be more honorable or of greater authority then the other Two And is not this case the same When Ministers and people shall all Capp and bende the knee as soone as ever they heare the sounde of the name Iesus but not so much as stirre either Cap or knee when they names of God the Father and Holy Ghost are mentioned with it even in the same breath and Sentence almost as they are in the Apostles and Athanasius Creede and in the ordinary Blessing at the end of Divine Service and Sermons wherewith the people are usually dismissed When men shall repeate I beleeve in God the Father allmighty Maker of Heaven and Earth without any great reverence or bowinge of the knee And then pronounce the next words And in Iesus Christ our Lord with a stentorian voice bowinge both the body and knee very superstitiously I should say devoutly as soone as ever the word Iesus is uttered before Christ our Lord be pronounced out of their greate reverence and respect to this name Iesus which they here preferre before God the Father allmighty and Christ our Lord And then shall proceed to I beleeve in the Holy Ghost and utter that without any such Ceremony or solemnity Or when they shall pronounce the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ with much solemnity cappinge and genuflection when Iesus not Lord and Christ are pronounced And then shall slightly passe over the Love of God the Father and the comfortable fellowship of God the Holy Ghost without any such Ceremony or incurvation What man in his right sences must not of necessity acknowledge that the very name Iesus is more honoured reverenced and adored then either the names or Persons of God the Father or God the Holy Ghost that more adoration is rendred to the Second then to the
First or Third person of the Trinity and a greate disparity made betweene them If Iewes or Infidells should come into our Churches and observe this difference and disparity would they not forthwith conclude that we had no other God but Iesus that the Father and Holy Ghost were not esteemed of us to be God Or at least made not so greate and honorable a God as the Sonne and that Christ and Iesus were not one and the same person the one being thus bowed to not the other Yes verily We reade in the Booke of Martyrs that the Bishops and Commissioners appointed by Queene Mary to dispute with Cranmer Latymer and Ridley at Oxford when ever they named or heard the name of the Pope put of their Capps thereto as men now doe at the naminge of Iesus Which these 3. godly Martyrs would by no meanes doe But when God Christ or the Queene were mentioned they used no such Reverence to their names Did not these Commissioners then in our Martyrs judgments preferre the person the name of their Lord God the Pope before the persons the names both of God himselfe of Christ of the holy Ghost at leastwise of the Queene and thereby signifie that the Pope was more honorable and far greater then the Queene or any other earthly Potentate whose name could not challenge or commande the like reverence and Cappinge from them yea doubtlesse If Three men were sittinge together and those who passe by put of their Hats to one of them not to the other two doth not this make an inequallity betweene them advancinge the one that is thus capped or bowed too above his fellowes Certainely it doth I finde in the Booke of Martyrs P. 1699. That when Archbishop Cranmer was convented before the Popes Queenes Commissionors in S. Maries Church in Oxford he putting of his Cap and humblie bowing his knee to the ground made reverence to the Queenes Proctors and Commissioners who represented her person but beholding Bishop Brookes in the face who was the Popes Delegate and represented his person he put on his Cap againe making no manner of token of obedience towards him at all Whereat the Bishop being offended saith unto him that it might become him right well weiginge the honor veneration and authority he did represent to doe his dutie unto him Whereunto Doctor Cranmer answered that he hath once taken a solemne Oath never to consent to the admitting of the Bishop of Romes authority into this Realme of England againe and that he had done it advisedly and therefore would commit nothing either by signe or token which might winne his consent to the receivinge of the same and that he did it not for any contempt to the Bishops person which he could have bene content to have honored as well as any of the other If his Commission had come from as good an authority as theirs This answered he modestly wisely and patiently with his Cap on his head not once bowinge or makinge any Reverence to him that reverence to him that represented the Popes person which was wonderously of the people marked If this Archbishops puttinge off his Cap and bowinge his knee to the one and not to the other to the Queenes commissioners only not the Popes Did here in his owne the Commissioner and all the peoples judgment make a great disparity betweene the power and Iurisdiction of the one and other and preferre the one of them before the other Must not doth not the bowinge and cappinge at the name only of Iesus not of God the Father and God the holy Ghost uttered alltogether or severally doe the like noe doubt it doth Bishop Andrewes and other of our bowers at the name of Iesus teach us in expresse termes that the name Iesus is in this more honorable then all other Titles of Christ and exalted ahove them all because men must only bow their knees and vayle their Cappes to it but not to any other of his Titles If therefore their bowinge at the name of Iesus makes a disparity betweene it and all other names of his preferring it far aboue them all Must it not likewise make an inequallity and disparity betweene the names and persons of the Trinity too by the selfesame Person and advaunce Iesus above the Father and the holy Ghost at whose names they never bow or stir their Capps Wherefore this bowinge to at and Cappinge at the name Iesus only must needs make and imply an inequallity betweene the 3. Persons of the Trinity As M. Cartwright largely proveth in his Answere to the Rhemisâ—s Annotations on Phil. 2.9 10.11 Therefore it is neither to be practised nor endured among Christians who beleeve the pariâ—ie and equallitie of the Trinitie both in Essence internall and externall honor adoration and veneration to Whether if Bishop Andrewes Doctrine warranted by no Scripture be true in this particular that we must bow at the name of Iesus not of Christ because the end is better then the meanes and the end for which Christ was annointed better then his unction itselfe it will not hence followe that the humanity of Christ being annointed by his Divinity and the Holy Ghost And the Salvation of us men the end for which Christ was annointed are much better then his Divinity and the Holy Ghost himselfe the ointment and meanes annointing his Humanity and enabling him to be a Saviour And whether the playne meaninge of his Proposition be not this in substance that the Humanity of Christ is better then his Divinity or the Holy Ghosts Deitie and the Salvation of man the end better then the Deitie and Humanitie of Christ the meanes of mans salvation which is no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme What Father or ancient Writer for aboue 1250. yeares after Christ commenting on this Text makes Iesus the name aboue every name principally meant and intended in this Text and not rather the names God and Lord Or that makes this Ceremony of bowing or cappinge at every naminge of Iesus in time of divine Service or Sermons in the Church the bowinge spoken of in this Text and what are their words to this purpose Or whether it be not an undoubted truth that no Father or Writer for 1200. yeares after Christ and more made any such interpretation of these words or mention of any such Ceremony used in the Church which certainly used it not till above 1150 yeares after Christ and so deemed it not a duty of the Text or necessary Ceremony What Father Ecclesiasticall Historian or Writer for 1500. yeares after Christ relates that this Ceremony was taken up by the Christians in the primitive Church to justifie to testifie the eternall Deitie of Christ against the Arrians and other Hereticks who denied it whether this ground of the originall use of this Ceremony be not a meere groundlesse forgery and fancye of some late Writers voyde of all prooffe authority and not warranted by any