the duty of the Text shall not be fulfilled Againe It is very absurd to affirme that our worship will teach to the Name but not to the Person of Christ for shall veneration and honour reach to a bare Name as it is sounded out by the breath of man who is lesse than nothing Isa 40.17 And can no worship reach to the Person who besides that he is in the glory of the Father in the heavens as man also is every where present by his infinite Deity and especially present in and among his Saints by his Spirit Answer The Reverend and learned Bishop Andrewet is the late furtherer if you please no late Father of the corporall bowing at the Name of Iesus He gives a reason why at the Name because his Person is out of our sight that we respecting his Name might shew our high esteeme of him Doth it therefore follow that when Christ appeares he shall be without a Name or his Name not acknowledged his By the same argument all his Attributes of chiefe Glory shall be taken from him You found the same inconsequence in it or else would have prosecuted it as you use where a Sophister may hide himselfe Another you have and this is it If the Bishops reason be good then Christ shall send out his Name at that Day to be bowed at and not come himselfe in person or if he come in person he must leave his Name behind him What Chymicall non-sense is here More worthy of the hisse then a Pen. He shall neither send his Name from himselfe nor come himselfe without his Name Hee calls himselfe by that Name now he is in glory Act. 9.5 Rev. 22.16 and with that Name will come in judgement For the Day is the revelation of the Lord Iesus 2 Thess 1.7 In your third absurditie you abuse the Reverend Bishops phrase applying the word reach to worship which he applyeth to the sight And the answer is Christs person is out of the reach of our sight not out of the reach of our worship M. T. Cic. pro L. Cor What advantage you have of the Learned I pray hold Est huius seculi labes quaedam macula virtuti invidere and it is your infirmitie or deformitie to envie his worth Names be signes and a kind of Images of things or Persons represented by them An Idolater bewes to an Image which he doth see because hee deemes that it represents unto him the Person whom he adores which he cannot see whereas if the Person were present befoâ—e him he would never bow to the Image The Name Iesus is as it were the signe or Image of our Saviour it would be therefore worse than Idolatry it selfe to bow to Christs Image before his owne face Answer Names are metaphoricall Images not materiall Being forbidden to worship God in the likenesse of any creature by the Second Commandement we are commanded to honour him in his Name at the third I know not what Idolaters would doe if the Person were in presence of the Image but sure I am your argument is prophane viz. Idolaters would not bow to the Image if the Person were in presence therefore t is worse then Idolatry it selfe to bow at and confesse the Name of Iesus before his face Had you spoken thus of Jehovah before a Jew he would have throwne a stone in your face If any shall yet infer that though all other Scriptures say nothing for the bowing at the Name Iesus at the Iudgement day yet it is enough that it be specified in one Text as viz. in this present Text of Phil. 2 9.10 I answer it is utterly against reason to imagine that if bowing at the Name Iesus were to be done at the Iudgement day that the holy Ghost would omit to specifie it in so many cleere places treating of the Iudgement day and would set it down in an obscure Text that treats not plainly of the Iudgment day but as it must be enlightened by other cleere Scriptures and that in such words and phrases that are different in sense to all those words and phrases in other Scriptures though often therein used Oh! It highly concernes us in season to provide Oyle in our Lamps that wee may meet Christ with comfort at that great day and not to be like children as Bishop Babington B. Babing in his Workes pag. 246. well notes playing with letters and syllables and adoring Titles with that honour which is due to the Person Iâ— is Sathans policy to exercise men with trifles that he may steale away their hearts from that which is necessary as wofull experience proves too true in such as are addicted to this will-worship Answer What 's here was before at first and there answered The Holy Ghost as it pleased him expressed the duty in this Text and so that he who hath a will may run and read What need of cleerer places when none can be more plaine Plaine in the letter and the letter sure in the analogy no way dissonant firmely grounded on the fudamentall truth Oh! It highly concernes you who have spread abroad your Papers in defiance of the Church and against the plaine Text It concernes you to search into your selfe Oh search and what by weeping you cannot doe by publike recantation undoe what you can It is treason to clip the Kings Coine and is it a light matter to alter Gods At the Name of Iesus you have hitherto read at the Name Iesus and like one of the children thaâ— Bishop Babington notes playd with the word till you haâ—e lost the sense To this I will subjoyne two other Arguments Whatsoever bowing is required by the Text shall not be fully perfected till the day of Iudgement But bowing at the Name Iesus may be fully perfected before for many can now make a perfect low curtesie at the sound of that Name even almost to the ground Ergo Bowing at the Name Iesus is not required by the Text * The bowing which the Saints shall performe at the Day of Iudgement is their perfection for then the image of God shall be perfectly restored to them Hence it will follow that if bowing at the Name Iesus be that bowing seeing the Saints in this life must strive toward perfection that all their striving must be how to make the fairest Cursies at the Name Iesus Whatsoever bowing is required in the Text is alreadie begun by every creature as I have proved before But corporall bowing at the Name Iesus is not practised in the least degree by the most of the creatures Ergo This bowing is not required in the Text. Answer In the first omitting the amphibolia the Minor is false The same was at thirdly before and there answered The Marginall note is a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and being added to your conclusion makes the fallacie there plurium interrogationum also In the second the Major is false and not yet proved true nor will be by
Iesus and how senselesse will this be Seeing then that the Names subjected to he Name above every Name are not the Names of creatures things subâ—eâ—ted for they are referred in the Text to knees of things in heaven things in earth and things under the earth not to Names but the powers of things and creatures subjected as I shall demonstrate hereafter Then cannot the Name above them all be a proper name for then the sense will be this The Namâ— Iesus hath dominion over eve y thing and creature and every thing and creature must bow knees to the Name Jesus which will be ridiculous Lâ—stly seeing the names subjected to the Name above every Name are meant the powers and vertues of things and creatures they excepting not divine Names they must understand it also of the power of God then the sense will be this The Name Iesus is above God and that God himselfe must bow knees to the name Iesus which sense will be horrid and blasphemous Answer Here 's mickle a doe and nothing done the reason is your Logicke holds no sence a plaine non sequitur at first and this it If the high advanced Name in the Text be a proper Name it will follow necessarily that all subjected names must be proper Nâ—mes also prove the consequence if you caâ— till you doe I tell you that if you understand by a proper Name as before a Name separated from the sence your inference a non existente is most absurd but if you mind the Name in the sence of the Name bee it the highest not of proper onely but of common also above Muscall and Giles c. above all below all above I except not no not I the Name of God See my Antiteichisma pag. 18 and there your inferences in this place will appeare tanquam puerorum naenia or like any thing that may please children How the Name of Iesus is and why exalted shall come at your next sixtly and afterward often What is intimated by every Name under super in the second section and as occasion is offered in the progresse To your lastly I say every one knows we are no Anthropomorphites and if any would know whence your horrid blasphemous conceit of Gods bowing knees to the Name Iesus proceedes Physitians will teach them that when the humours of the braine are over servent by their agitation mens in falsa traducitur Secondly If it were necessary to understand Name above every Name for a Name or Title yet may it not be understood of the Name or Title Iesus for these Reasons First The word Iesus doth no where in the whole new Testament signifie the bare name Iesus but onely then when it was promised by the Angell at Christs Conception Mat. 1.21 and given unto him at his Circumcision Luke 2.21 where necessarily it must so signifie Answer At your concessum in this second place the six reasons have not web enough to entangle a flye so insufficient they that your negative proposition will no more be then be supported by your word The first is the word Iesus doth no where in the whole new Testament signifie the bare name Jesus therefore Name above every name as a bare name may not bee understood of the Name Iesus as a bare Name Here is stuffe for an Antagonist who ever conceived save you that the word Jesus doth signifie the word Jesus and doe you in earnest affirme iâ— at Mat. 1.21 Lu. 2.21 I never read it so there nor elsewhere But if this might be granted why should not the Name above every Name be spoken of Jesus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name is Iehovah in the old and may not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name above every Name be Jesus in the nâ—w looke againe and you shall often find a Pariphrasis of that Name and Name often used for Jesus Act. 5.41 Secondly This phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name of Iesus is never taken in all the New Testament where onely it is used for the name Iesus or any other titles of Christ but in others senses If any shall thinke that it is meant of the name Iesus in this place making thâ— word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Dative case and to agree in opposition with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no Article before it I answer in sundry places of the New Testament the selfe same phrase is used without an Article and is never put in the Dative case but alwâ—iâ—s in the Genitive and doth no where denote the baâ—e namâ— Iesus as in these places amongst others Act. 2.38 Act. 16 18. Act. 4.10 Col. 3.17 Answer Secondly this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name rather the Name of Jesus is never taken in the New Testament for the Name Jesus that is the Name in the sense if I understand you is not without the sense Therefore Name above every Name as a bare Name may not be understood of the Name Jesus as a bare Name If our Worship were thus metaphysicall could any Logician overthrow it with this argument Infer the Enthymeme and when I am such a Word-worshipper you shall convert Here 's no more required of me till you have rendred me more reason To your next supposition if any shall thinke that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you would say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is meant of the Name Jesus by apposition because no Article is prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I answer if I should say so all your skill in Grammer cannot disprove it but the phrase being usuall and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not prefixed t is argument enough to me that it must be the genitive The genitive it shall be and so much the stronger against you For the genitive being the first intention the dative cannot be the same as in your cited places Act. 2.38 c. Thirdly The Name above every Name is incommunicable to any creature being the onely prerogative of the Son of God but the name Iesus was communicated to others as to Ioshuah which is the same Name with Iesus Heb. 4.8 c. Therefore it is not sound what bishop * Sermon on Phil 2.9.10 Andrewes and Master * Iustification of vowing pag 49 Page from him do affirme that the Name Iesus is incommunicable which though it were given by men yet they say it was not given of God who appoynted none this Name save Iesus Christ and therefore they say that it is greater than the Name Christ because many were called the Lords Christs by Gods owne allowance as Kings and Prophets For to this I answer The Name Iesus was not given to some at least without a speciall providence of God as to Ioshuah who was a great Saviour and type of Christ Thus hath learned Vrsinus * Catechis pag. 196. Atqui inquis Parentes Ioshuae c. But thou wilt say saith he that the Parents of Ioshua when they gave him this Name could not imagine
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
against the Scriptures This advancing of Iesus doth shew that our salvation consulted by the three Persons and undertaken onely by the second is equally to the glory of all The doctrine is frequent in the new Testament and the more the more desperate your opposition 'T is not the saying that God excepted himselfe when all things are subjected unto Jesus or that at 1 Pet. 3.21 Psal 87.27 c. Jesus is advanced over creatures onely will exeme him from the high sublimation wherein the glory of the blessed Trinity is and no where else refulgent The Father not subjecting declares equality and the Sons eminency his Fathers excellency He and the Father are one See my Antiteich Tract 9. Pag. 87.88 c. Did I now maintaine the opinion that you perswade the world I am in your ten arguments would be too senselesse to evict me How I stand my Antiteich declares And once againe I protest that if it be superstition to honour our Saviour in the sense of his Name I will by the grace of God contend to be so superstitious still But here I pray tell me who are they that doe extoll the bare Name Not the Protestants I am sure nor the Rhemists men in the Moone perhaps or else 't is a Chimaera of your owne braine What is Christs should ever be handled with respect His Name therefore for that is his and may not be separated from him Seeing then that the Name above every Name Name above every Name what it is cannot be the Name Iesus I understand it of the supereminent Glory and Power of Christ and that upon these Reasons Answer Your transition unto the positive Thesis hath at the words seeing then c. an epilogue of what you have shewed and what have you Even the reedes that Mydas Barber filled full of words The Name above every Name may for ought you have said be a bare Name and so honoured And because you cannot prove any thing against your supposall permit I pray our brethren to give the Name a sense and Worship too as the Name of Iesus That you will a man would thinke For now you understand it of supereminent glory and have reasons store for what you understand First It is no way contrary to the analogie of faith so to understand it for Name is used for Glory and eminency familiarly in Scripture as Gen. 11.4 and in common use of speech as we say Such a one hath a Name for wisedome and learning when we note him to be eminent and potent for the same Answer Nihil occultum te latet behold what Eagles eyes have you got It is no way contrary to the analogy of faith so to understand it Therefore it is so Your reason is because Name is used for glory Gen. 11.4 The sight is very dim that will be darkned with such a mist By the same argument it may be the worship or service of God For so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name signifieth Mat. 28.19 If you stand to this this is as strong against as for you But it comes againe with fresh supply at thirdly and fourthly and will be discussed then Secondly Name of God c. in Scripture doth commonly denote the Power Majesty and Glory of God and that two wayes Either implicitely or expressely 1. Implicitely when the Person of God because he is glorious and full of Majesty is onely denominated properly and evidently as Psal 5.11 Let them that love thy Name be joyfull in thee that is Let them that love thee So Psal 9.2 so Act. 3.16 even as we say to great men according to their degrees of honour Your Majesty your Grace your Honour So accordingly the Saints of God have usually spoken of God and to God and Christ in and by the Title of his Majesty Thy Name because Name Glory and Kingdome are properly his 2. Expressely when the Power and Glory of God is particularly and evidently manifested by the word Name as 1 Sam. 17.45 I come unto thee in the Name that is In the power of the Lord of Hostes So Rom. 9.17 That my Name that is My Glory may be declared So Act. 4.7 By what power or in what Name Answer At secondly you bring no more then I give you viz. that Name is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and stil the analogy is as proper for our sense as evident for yours For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name and the Name be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lord yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name pronounced is no lesse among the Hebrewes nor ever otherwise in any other dialect Thirdly It is more agreeable to the analogie of the Scriptures so to understand it than otherwise for first a great Name doth every where signifie the great glory and dignity of the Person Secondly Name above another doth every where signifie the Glory and Dignity of the Person having that Name above others whose names are not so great Answer Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi Tertul. Valent. Truth feares nothing more then not to be in publike Abscondat se serpens quantum potest yet me thinkes your over-sight at thirdly and fourthly should make you blush This is it Having at first understood the Name above every Name to be the supereminent power and glory of Christ here you say t is more agreeable to the Text so to read it then otherwise For first and secondly or if you will avoyd the tautology let both your reasons be this one A great Name doth every where signifie the great glory and dignity of the person To grant this is to vanquish you If it signifie the glory and the dignity then t is not the glory and the dignity For Signum non est signatum the signe is not the thing signified Fourthly It must be so understood here and not for the Title Iesus because in this sense it fits the words of the Text answerable to other correspondent Scriptures for thus I reason Whatsoever Name is the gift which God gave Christ when he exalted him is the Name above every Name in the Text for so the words of the Text are God highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name But Power and Glory is the gift which God gave Christ when he exalted him according to these correspondent Scriptures Mat. 28.18 All power is given me in heaven and in earth and 1 Pet. 1 21. God raised Christ from the dead and gave him glory Ergo Power and Glory is the Name in the Text above every Name Therefore not the Name Iesus Answer Must it so be understood and not for the Name Jesus And is that your reason because power and glory is the gift which God gave Christ Mat. 28 18. 1 Pet. 1.21 'T is true power there and glorie are given unto him but power and glory are not the Name given him though his Name bee the Name of power and glory Your
thing both rationall and irrationall without exception of any For it seemes to me that the Kingdome of Christ set forth in this Text is not onely his Kingdome of Mediatorship but also his naturall Kingdome which from all Eternity he enjoyed with his Father to which Kingdome he is advanced to by his Father according to his humane nature and this seemes to agree with many paraled Scriptures as 1. with Iob. 17.4.5 where Christ prayeth after this manner I have glorified thee on earth I have finished the worke that thou gavest me to doe And now O Father glorifie me with thine owne selfe with that glory which I had with thee before the world was 2. It is proved from Heb. 1.2 God hath in these last dayes spoken unto us by his Son whom he hath made heire of all things by whom also he made the worlds that is God hath advanced his Son according to his humane nature to be partaker of the Glory of his Divine nature who made the worlds and all things therein now to be inheritour of all things Therefore saith Mr. Calvin on that place Hic honor jure debetur c. Calvin oâ— Heb. 1. This honour is rightly due to the Son of God that he should have power over all things because by him all things were made 3. It is confirmed from that paralell place of Col. 1.15.16 4. It is evident from 1 Cor. 15.27 where God having excepted himselfe that did put all things under Christs feet it is plaine hath excepted nothing but himselfe 5. It is manifest from Heb. 2 6 7.8 in which place the Apostle apply's the eight Psalme to Christ where is specified the subjection of irrationall creatures yea the Apostle saith expressely there that God having put all things under Christs feet hath excepted nothing that is not put under him 6. Seeing that it is manifest that this Text of Phil. 2.9.10 shall not be perfectly fulfilled till the day of judgement we shall find that other things besides rationall creatures shall bee subject at that day to Christ for the Apostle shewes 1 Cor. 15.26 that he shall destroy the last enemy which is death and Rev. 20.13 The Sea shall give up the dead which are in her and death and hell shall yeeld up the dead which are in them 7. It may appeare from Rev. 5.13 a place correspondent in phrase and sense to Phil. 2.9.10 where the Holy Ghost having spoken before of all rationall creatures how they praised Christ speakes there of irrationall both sensitive and insensitive and refers them to every creature in heaven in earth and under the earth and in the Sea which creatures groaning now and travelling in paine for the sin of man do long for the day of redemption at which time they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God and now in their kind they praise and glorifie Christ in hope of it but at that day shall their fullest praise and subjection be So that it seemes to me that no creature or thing is excepted but that all must bow to Christ yea indeed the Text of Phil. 2.9 seemes to me plainly to infer it for the Apostle speaking of all knees of things in every part of the whole universe as Heaven Earth and under the earth seemes to except nothing from bowing to Christ On Phil. 2.9.10 And this appeares to be the judgement of Mr Calvin Omnia à coelis c. God hath subjected all things from heaven to hell to the rule and dominion of Christ And of this opinion are plainly Origen and Hierome as Bishop Babington cites them In his Worke Pag. 245. 246. and thus judgeth Mr. Edward Gurnaie in his Vindication of the Second Commandement Pag. 72. Answer Here you shew an Aesculapian temper though you have read much yet your great Reading will submit to better but your Mercuriall wit hath mangonized a Gigantean fury with an humble hue For by whom you pretend to be guided you looke on with a sinister eye and oppose them with all your might Let me premise that by Names in your first line must be understood every Name under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above V. 9. or else the question is changed This done your argument stands thus The Kingdome of Christ in this Text is not onely of Mediatourship but naturall also Therefore every Name must be referd to all creatures without exception The antecedent is false For though they seclude not one the other as opposita yet when the Oecumenicall is spokâ—n of the essentiall is not intended For thâ— Naturall is Christ◠〈◊〉 Son of God the personall his secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—y dispensation onely as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God and Man This the Apostle minds and the administration of this here and hereafter This is it at the three paralell places Isa 45.23 Rom. 14.11 Phil. 2.10 as the ancient and moderne Divines heeding the context have necessarily inferd See my Antit Tract 6. pag. 53. c. The Texts are very quiet among themselves if you could permit them their senses They doe not all which you have cited speake of the Naturall Kingdome onely But if they did may not Phil. 2.10 be understood of the Personall Doth not the Apostle here say that every knee and every tongue shall confesse that Iesus is Lord or made Heire of all things as to the Hebrewes he writeth Heb. 1.2 How made He ever was Heire and never not Heire as the Sonne of God Made then he was gratia dispensationis and by the Vnion as God and Man As then the Church is in the Common-weale yet is not the Common-weale so here this Personall Kingdome is within the Naturall yet not the Naturall and as in the one so in the other what is spoken of the one is not of the other Your forcing of severall Texts to force on this Text the sense of the Naturall Kingdome makes me feare you are enclining to Eutychisme Not distinguishing how Christ hath any thing in a singular manner you apprehend all things his by nature onely and according to humane nature also in your first and second proofe Indeed Christ-man hath the essentiall Kingdome but not as man for then every man should have it also and where were subjection then Though therefore whatsoever is in or of one or the other Nature may be spoken of the whole person yet not otherwise then limitate according to that nature whose proprietie it is Christ-man hath the essentiall glory according to his Divine nature not according to the humane the humane nature receives of the Divine by grace in fruition not by reall participation There is no more proved at Ioh. 17. Heb. 1.2 nor more in the subsequent citations then that the Sonne of God having taken upon him in our nature a personall Kingdome holds still his naturall And so much doth M. Calvin Calvin in Heb. whom you urge say
of Christ the highest Lord. 1. That it is understood of all kinds of creatures it is evident from the fore-quoted place of Rev. 5. vers 10. where the foure Beasts and the foure and twenty Elders by whom are understood rationall creatures as Angels and men are said to extoll and glorifie Christ And it followes verse 13. that Iohn heard all the creatures in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth and in the Sea and all that are in them to say Praise glory and honour be to the Lambe c. which creatures there are all irrationall creatures which have no proper tongues to speake and yet are said to speake the praise of Christ Even as the Heavens and the Earth are said Psal 19.1.2.3 to speake in all languages the praise of God their Creatour So now they shall praise Christ the great Lord and Redeemer And secondly that every part and parcell of the creature shall praise the Lord it appeares from Psal 103.1.2.3 where the Prophet David cals upon his Soule and all that is within him that is all the vigours and powers that are in every part of him to praise the Lord As David in every part of him praised God and the Messiah to come so shall every part of every creature either willingly or unwillingly praise and extoll the great Name of the Lord Jesus being come and advanced and in this generall sense the proper tongue of man is not excluded And thus at the last day the Friends of Christ with their wills and his enemies against their wills shall call Christ Lord Mat. 7.22 Mat. 25.37.44 Answer Secondly to uphold your Utopicall subjection by the confession of the Tongue may not be meant a literall and vocall confession of that member And why Doth not the Apostle say that with the heart man beleeveth unto righteousnesse and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Rom. 10.10 The Heart and Tongue Soule and Body make a full subjection The very Angels have their outward expressions and we must have ours or else God hath not all his What you urge at Rev. 5.10.11.12 is strong against you but you finde a Prosopopaeia in the 13. verse and that Psal 19. and 103. all mute creatures are induced speaking the prayse of God therefore the reasonable must be tongue-tyed A non esse ad esse non valet argumentu◠But if your conclusion be therefore the reasonable must suo modo confesse as the irrationall doe their way then as they with all their might we doe with ours not only inwardly yeeld but outwardly also by Tongue and Knee c. shew forth our obedience This you ought to mind or in your generall acception of subjection you contradict your selfe for all the Vertues appeare not if any Knee or Tongue be excepted See my Antiteich Tract 4. pag. 28. Tract 5. pag. 43. 44. c. and the Syllogisme will be this Whatsoever bowing is expressely required in the Text ought to be performed by every creature injoyned it But corporall bowing is expressely required in the Text. Therefore corporall bowing ought to be performed by every creature inioyned it The Maior and the Minor are in the Text and you in your subjection generall and generall confession yeeld as much Doe what you can you can but obscure the truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the ignorant people Others finde before they seeke you and will shame you unlesse your timely recantation be more fortunate then your miserable Art SECTION IV. Wherein it is to be considered what is meant by this phrase In the Name of Iesus THe Bowers at the Name Iesus to make their opinion and practise good doe thus understand in the Name of Iesus to be at the mention of the Name Iesus But I infer that this interpretation is senslesse and absurd having for it no ground or warrant from Scripture For 1. as I said before this phrase Name of Iesus is never taken for the Name Iesus or for any other Titles of our Saviour 2. Therefore In the Name of Iesus can never be taken for at the mention of the Name Iesus any where 3. This phrase In the Name prefixed before any of the Titles of the Deity as in the Name of Christ Lord God c. is never taken for at the Naming of any of these Names in any part of the old and new Testament but if any shall fasten such a sense upon it any where it will marre and murder the sense as indeed it doth the sense of this Text by that exposition To instance but in two places amongst many Psal 118.10 All Nations compassed me about but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them would not it be a wilde sense to say At the Naming of the Lord I will destroy them So Act. 9.29 Saul spake boldly in the Name of the Lord Jesus were it not infinitely absurd to say that he spake boldly at the Naming of the Lord Iesus Thus ridiculous will the sense be made everywhere where this phrase is used according to this exposition try it who will This exposition which they make of the Text is one of the maine pilars of their cause which did they not make they should lose a maine and principall ground for this their opinion and practise and therefore this faling them all failes them I know they are not able to bring any one Scripture for to warrant this exposition They have no vision for it therefore they are naked It is built upon the loose Sand of vain opinion and not upon the Scriptures therefore it falls to the ground All the warrant they have for this exposition is this that in doth often signifie at or to I answer this is nothing except they can bring any Scripture for the whole phrase viz. that in the Name doth signifie at the mention of the Name which they cannot doe For my part I refuse not to take the Preposition or as they would have it taken and so it shall make for me and not for them Let in be as much as to or at and so for as much as I have shewed before that Name of God or Christ doth denote the Power and glory of Christ either expressely or implicitely I take it this phrase In the Name of Iesus may be indifferently referred either to the Power and glory of Christ expressely so the sence will be this Every knee or Power shall bow at or to the Power and Glory of Christ or rather to the person of Christ implicitely enfolding his Power and Dominion and then the sense will be this Every knee shall bow at or to Christ And thus it agrees to this phrase in Psal 63.4 Thee will I blesse while I live I will lift up my hands in thy Name that is I will lift up mine hands to thee or I will worship and adore thee and agrees fitly also with Isa 45.23 which is applyed to Christ Rom. 14.11 As I live saith the Lord every knee shall bow
Oracle of that opinion understands it yet hereby is not the Person of Christ properly denominated because so the exposition refers the whole bowing to the Name none at all to the Person and themselves confesse that to bow to the Name and not to the Person is Idolatry Answer Here you are aviated and say you know not what What doe we neither respect his Name nor his Person Are we Jewes thinke you to bow the Knee in derision of him Or were not you of Protagoras sect when in derision of our bowing at the Name you told some of your Parishiones how the boy that was whipped cryed out Iesus and made his Master kisse his posteriours The defacing of the Image is the disgracing of the Prince and the mocking of the Christian is the scorning of Christ Irrisor non poenitens Lycurgus King of Thracia despising Bacchus chopt his leg asunder as he lopt his Vine Take this till more comes Now I may tell you that we make not the Name a cypher For in the Name we behold the circle of perfection in it a Unit in that Unit three angules and in the middle two natures and of these but one Person Jesus Christ. Nor yet a meere Watch-word Indeed the naming gives notice that it is our time but the Name carries us in our adoration unto his Person The Name hath regard and the Person the duty In the sense of his Name no otherwise doe we honour him And so doth Bishop Andrewes the Oracle of his time not of this opinion as you terme him understand it But suppose he had beene the first in it I should rather confide in his judgement then in Mr. Prin Mr. Burton Mr. Gyles and all the Arrians Socinians Anabaptists Brownists Separatists in the Kingdome Nor can you perswade the world that bowing at the Name we mind not the Person Nor are you able to prove that in this way of worship there can be Idolatry unlesse the Disciples were Idolatrous when they fell on their faces and worshipped at the hearing of a Voice Mat. 17.6 But they say it is done to the Person by bowing to the Name I reply to passe by the censure of such a kind of worship for so saith Bishop * In his Workes pag. 245. Babington an Idolater may excuse his Idolatry by this distinction of concomitancy What they say is one thing and how they expound the Text is another according to their exposition of the Text they cannot make that sense of it except they adde to the Text so that according to their owne grounds they must make the worship either vaine or Idolatrous No marvaile therefore that that judicious and learned Dr. Whitakers reckning up sundry absurd interpretations In his Answer to Sanders demonstration concerning Antichrist which the Papists make of the Scriptures concludes with this their interpretation of this Text from whom our superstitious-Iesu-worshippers had it as the most absurd and grossest of all and no marvaile that famous Bishop * In his Workes pag. 24â—â— Babington censures such to be justly given up of God to delusions to beleeve lyes because they will not search for truth Now I come to handle sundry Arguments against bowing at the Name Jesus Answer What Bishop Babington B. Babing upon the 2 CoÌ„man p. 20. saith you meant not your Reader should see Had you named in which Worke of his I might have found it But in his Workes Printed 1637. in Folio there is no such thing as concomitancy to be found in any 245. Page Whether it be among his Questions and Answers upon the Second Commandement I know not nor had I time to search There it is most likely and what he produceth there of Idolaters excusing their Idolatry by saying they worship not the Image but God in and under the Image is nothing against us For here is no Image graven or that can be pensilled unlesse you can as Sir Edward Deering Sir E. Deer Sect. 11. p. 86. spake bring the object of one sense to fall under the distinguishment of another When I see a voice or a sound pictured I shall be of your mind We goe no otherwise by the sound unto our Saviour then by the hearing of the Word unto God If we may worship God in his Word why may we not honour Iesus in his Name Bishop Babington B. Babing on 2. Arti p. 196. whatsoever you say sayes nothing against this sense where he reproveth the superstitious use of the literall word Iesus Doctor Whitakers denyes not this reverence at the Name of Iesus but would have it done to the Name of God and Christ also saith Doctor Page D. Page Iustifiâ— of how p. 22. And here againe let me put you in mind of your altering the Text. If the Reader observe it well he may prognosticate the downefall of your edifice For at the foundation and throughout the building you turne the genitive case in the Text into the case of the Name and read it at the Name Iesus Thus you have played the Juggler stole the sense from the Name beguiled the people and put the theft impudently upon our Church I have beene large in answering your exposition that when I shall hereafter labour to be briefe I may not be obscure to the Reader See my Antiteich Tract 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the Syllogisme will be this Where the face of the Text which literally is in analogie of the truth is most changed there is most probability of errour But in interpreting the Name above every Name Power and glory at the Name of Iesus to the power of Iesus and bowing of the Knee to be vertuall the face of the Text which literally is in analogy to the truth is most changed Ergo. In that interpretation there it most probability of errour The Major is according to the rules of interpretation the Minor is before demonstrated And here let me conclude that you have not confer'd your undertakings and your strength Senec. de Jran c. 5. Oprimat onus ferente majus SECTION VI. EVery true interpretation of a Text especially an obscure Text must be warranted by Scripture speaking of the same matter or in the same phrases But to affirme that the Name Iesus in the Text of Phil. 2.9.10 is the Name above every Name not onely created but divine and that theâ—efore wâ— must bow at the sound of that Name is not warranted by any correspondent Scriptures speaking often of the same matter Or to expound these phrases Name above Names made or given to be the advancement of a naked proper Name above such Names or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name of Iesus to be the Name Iesus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Name to be at the sound of the Name None of these expositions are warranted by Scripture speaking often in the same phrases Ergo Not one of these expositions which these superstitious Iesu-Worshippers make the ground of their
opinion and practise is a true expositition Let the Minor be disproved if it can The Major is proved from Rom. 12.6 If any Prophesie let him Prophesie according to the proportion of faith So 2 Pet 1.20 No Scripture hath any private interpretation It is an infallible rule set downe by Divines for the understanding of the Scriptures Thus saith learned Zanchius Zanchius de Scriptura pag. 422. Altera interpretandi Scripturas regula est c. Another Rule saith he of interpreting the Scriptures is a diligent accurate comparing of the Scriptures which are of the same thing one with another that is that we expound the more obsure Scriptures by those that are more evident and cleare for the Scripture is an interpreter of it selfe than which a better cannot be found And thus saith Austine Non ita esse interpretandum unum locum ut cum multis alijs pugnet Aug. de Doctrinâ Christianâ sed ut cum multis alijs consentiat We must not so understand one place that it disagree with many others but that it agree with many others This then their interpretation above mentioned agrees with no place but disagrees with all it is therefore none of Gods Truths Answer Your Major is false must an obscure Text be warranted by Scripture speaking of the same or in the same phrase Suppose there be no more Texts of the same may it not be knowne by examining it by the morall truth What else intends the Apostle Rom. 12.6 which you have induced for your selfe If any Prophesie let him Prophesie according to the proportion of Faith In the Greeke it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some render the measure others the rule of faith In the one the Apostle meeteth with the fault of these times He would not have one man seeme to know all things but every one to keepe within his proportion In the other sense he teacheth the perfect canon of interpreting viz. that examination bee made ad Christianae fidei axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bez. in Annot according to the axiomes of the Christian faith which of themselves are to be beleeved And what other rule doth Saint Peter 2 Epistle 1.20 prescribe Were they the first and this observed your Enthusiasmes would not have broken forth among so many to helpe breake the peace of the Church But will Zanchius allow your assertion His second rule is Vt obscurae Scripturae per clariores interpretemur that we should interpret the obscure by the more cleare Or will Saint Augustine in saying one place may not disagree with many other confirme your proposition Nay and that you have urged makes against your selfe Your Authors will have the hard explained by the more easie if more there be if not by the analogy of the universall faith Your Minor is refelled in your former Section and in my Antiteichisma In your conclusion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because you there shew your Sophistry in such profane language let your patience know that the Hebrew Proverb Drus ad lit Vav 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vae malo vae illis qui adhaerent ei secludes not you SECTION VII WHatsoever bowing is required by the Text shall be necessarily performed by every Creature in Heaven in Earth and under the Earth But bowing at the Name Iesus shall not be performed by every Creature in Heaven in Earth and under the Earth Therefore Bowing at the Name Jesus is not required by the Text. The Minor is plaine for to omit now to speake of Angels Devills and dumbe creatures Bowing at the Name Iesus shall not be performed by the most men for many Nations know not Christ therfore cannot so bow all their life famous Churches doe not so bow If this then be the true bowing I would faine know how and at what time they shall performe it that in this life performe it not To deny the Major is absurd for the Text is plaine that Christ is advanced to so high a Name that every creature should bow to him in that name 2 It is such a bowing as there is also a demonstration that Christ is Lord therefore if any creature shall be exempted from the bowing in the Text Christ should not be their Lord which would be derogatory to Christs honour and contrary to evident Scriptures as Mat. 28 19. Where all Power is given Christ in Heaven and Earth And Heb. 1.2 where Christ is called Heire that is Lord of all things Whereas then some answer that though every one shall not bow at the Name Iesus yet every one is bound to doe it they ought to performe it I reply if that bowing be the duty of the Text every one of necessity must and shall doe it To affirme then that the duty of the Text should be done of all though it shall not is all one as to affirme that Christ should be Lord of every creature and it behoveth him so to be though he shall not If then bowing at the Name Iesus shall not bee performed of all it is manifest it is not required by the Text for all Expositors hold generally that the Text shall willingly or unwillingly be fulfilled of all Answer Your Major is true if by every creature you understand angels men and devills as the Fathers have expounded it See my Antiteichisma But if you intend it of all rationalls sensitives vegetatives insects mineralls all whatsoever you bring in more then comes within the scope of the Apostles doctrine The Texts you urge for proofe were cited to the same and to as little purpose before Sect. 3. Where I declared that the Hebrew word at Isa 45.23 and the Greeke at Rom. 14.11 Phil. 2.10 for bowing are not in these Texts And my Answer is that if in your citations an universall subjection be expressed in the three paralell places a speciall duty is injoyned I said that if for I question your sense very much of Heb. 1.2 Because Saint Chrysostome Chrysost in Heb. 1.2 interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Nations But be it as you will you are answered till it is proved that bowing at Phil. 2.10 is not a signe of our reasonable submission Your method is distorted for you have brought the rest to the Major which might have beene an anticipation at the Minor Thither I goe and there is amphibolia in the subject You mind the bare Name and we according to the Text the Name of Iesus In this sense all reasonable creatures and they onely shall performe it The objection you make is answered in my Antiteich Tract 5. pag. 47. 48. Tract 6. pag. 58. But you have in the supply of your Major proposition saved the labour You say in our behalfe and to make way for a reply that every one is bound to doe it though everyone shall not doe it I thanke you Sir and now give me leave to doe something per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will for
shall not be perfect till the last day Is there a present equity shall it begin here be fulfilled hereafter and is it not a duty at the last A perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your lucke is better then your art if you reconcile these Nor doth your saying that servants shew not their subjection by bowing at their Masters Name nor Wives at their husbands infringe the learned Doctors tenet but makes you ridiculous Is their any comparison betweene the highest Name of God and the Name of sinfull man Yet a good Servant will honour the Name of his Master and a loving Wife the Name of her husband In what high esteeme then ought his Name to be that gave himselfe to save sinners But you will teach D. Page to speake to the purpose will you very well yet you understand not what you speake He said as you expresse before It shall be true of all knees then but it must be verified of some knees now You affirme that becaâ—se all creatures declare their subjection by bowing at the Name Jesus at the last day accordingly wee must now witnesse our subjection This is right to you and not the other Would you have all men say in Saint Egidius Have you done any more then put the same sense into other and more words See here is nothing save 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fallacie of a babbler And your babble runs to make the more ignorant beleeve that the duty shall not be performed at the generall day and therefore ought not to be regarded now Yet I can tell you that faith shall not be in life eternall yet who will come there must beleeve here Some to whom I have put this Argument and finding it too hot for them stand to it to affirme that bowing at the Name Iesus shall be fulfilled at the day of Iudgement but they cannot prove it otherwise than by seeking shelter at this Text. If any such assertion shall ever come in Print Affirmanti incumbit probatio I am confident that every judicious Reader will smile at it if not grieve to see the wilfulnesse of such men that rather than they will yeeld to the truth will justifie such dangerous Paradoxes I will therefore by Gods assistance encounter with it and I thinke I shall upon better reasons disprove it than they can ever prove it Answer Have you put it to some who are they But if you have are you sure it was too hot for them What too hot because they take shelter at the Text Is not this enough whilest it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in with the morall truth of the third Commandement and our Lords first Petition If there were no more to be said then this this would be opprobrium negantis and make the impartiall Reader imbase you for your peremptorie denyall You have the congruence of the phrase Sect. 4. and if you would have more see my Antiteich Tract 6. p. 61. 62. When this is compared with that it will be so cleare from the hazard of a dangerous paradox that any man save he that loves wrangling will say you are jurgii seminator You thinke you shall disprove it doe if you can and when you cannot let your excellencie be seene in petulant denying most First There is no Scripture for it and it is in no wise to be imagined that so many cleere Scriptures speaking so fully and plainly of the Iudgement day and of the deportment of those that shall then appeare should say nothing of this ceremony of bowing at the Name Iesus if it were then to be done Answer Is there no Scripture for it No Is Phil. 2.10 no Scripture And are there not many Texts in congruitie with it See 2 Thess 1.10.12 where it is said That in the Day of Judgement the Name of our Lord Jesus shall be glorified in us and wee in him All Expositors understand Isa 45.23 Rom. 14.11 of the generall Day too and in both those places the very same word is used in the first by the Septuagint in the second by the Apostle which is here But if there were no other Text for it can any be produced against it Any or nigh so cleare as there are many for it If there be I will yeeld all Secondly To what end shall the Name Iesus be sounded out at that day that all shall bow at the sound of it When he shall then appeare in his most glorious Name of Power and Glory when he shall not come as a Iesus to the most that shall then bow but a Lord to all and so shall all call him Mat. 25.37.44 Answer Is this a Disproofe a Demand rather Be it what you will it seemes you are ignorant and would be informed Reade the 11. Verse of Phil. 2. and there it is plaine that every tongue shall confesse that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father That is the end and there is open confession I 'le warrant For the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies speaking out See my Antiteich Tract 7. Tract 9. That 's the utmost end and the other is in respect of our selves because there is no other Name wherein we are saved Act. 4.12 Your argument That Christ shall come as Lord to all therefore not as Iesus is very false and the simple people are abused by your misapplying the Text Mat. 25.37.44 For who is Lord save Jesus And Jesus being the Saviour of us is the confounding Jesus of his and our enemies Thirdly It is absurd to imagine that the Holy Ghost would describe the perfection of Christs Kingdome onely by such a gesture as a child can perform at the mention of his Father Answer You are very childishly absurd in your asseveration We are not of those Heretikes to whom as Saint Chrysostome sayes the bowing of the knee was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the full glory of Christs Kingdome This is of not all the perfection it hath Fourthly Bishop Andrewes On Phil. 2.9.10 the late Father of the coâ—porall bowing at the Name Iesus will confute it by a saying of his He is exalted to whose Person knees doe bow His Person is taken out of our sight all that wee can doe will not reach to it but his Name he hath left behind him to us that we may shew by our reverence and respect to it how much wee estâ—eme him If then we must now bow to the Name because the Person of Christ is out of our sight then it followes that when Christ shall manifest his Person there will be no time or place for bowing at the Name But by the Bishops reason seeing he acknowledgeth the fulfilling of the Text at the day of Iudgement it will follow that Christ shall send out his Name at that day to have it sounded out that all should bow at it and not come himselfe in Person or else if then he come in Person he must leave his Name behind him and so
was constrained unto it I will suppose no man was so mad as to contemne it And suppose Ministers suspended for other Ceremonies were never questioned for this I will againe suppose they were not complained of All then you say doth no more make it not a duty of the Text or accuse the Church of hypocrisie then your not administring the Lords Supper but as and when you please doth One particular destroyes not the generall Nor doth the not punishing every neglect of a duty make it lesse a dutie It may often happen as now it doth that the Church hath little or no power to punish But had she power and were not the Canons within the Church-wardens inquirie Did they or any other ever Present the default and it passed without blame Bishops though they be eminent inspectors are not Omniscient If the offenders be not made knowne whom shall they correct The Scriptures hath prescribed this Non sit dubitandum Aug. Epist 110. ad Ianu. quin ita facere debeamus No doubt we ought so to doe The Church therefore questions not every neglect before she finds the contempt And the lesse because she holds it a part insolentissimae insaniae of most insolent madnesse to dispute Gods command SECTION XVIII LAst of all I may bring this as a reason against them the most of them and some also of the chiefest of them that ground it on the Text yet hold their opinion very uncertainly they passe to and fro betwixt the Text and the Canon When they thinke that the Authority of the Canon is not altogether sufficient to make the people to practise it they flee to the Text when they are afraid that the Text will not beare it they flee to the Canon And if this be not halting betweene two opinions for my part I know not what is I will instance but in one Master Page in his Treatise of Iustification of bowing at the Name Iesus doth confesse that when he first went about that Treatise he did not thinke that it could be so directly proved from the Text a plaine evidence that he went about it doubtfully for he was to encounter with an Antagonist that held it no dutie of the Text and would he goe about to contradict him when himselfe was fearefull that the Text would not beare it but he affirmes that when he had read Bishop Andrewes on Phil. 2 he could not but condescend to his * Page Iustification bowing P. 4. opinion yea though he brings many Arguments such as they are to prove it a dutie yet thus he closeth with his Antagonist Though I am not so peremptory saith he that it is a duty of the Text as you are it is not Neverthelesse if the Text faile me I will ground it upon the Authority of the Church Answer Whom you here meane I know not some and some of the chiefest they are and in their opinions uncertaine they Because what you thinke you say and care not what Sir if you will understand what I feare you studie to contemne this Orthodoxe truth you must goe from the Text to the Canon and from the Canon to the Text. Thus if you will from the Text to the Canon as to the Hypereticall or Ministeriall Diction of the Sentence and then from the Canon to the Text to examine it by the Decisive of the Scripture This course I first tooke and the Scripture hath so determined it in my Conscience as I write Consider once more the Text and the Canon and this Ceremonie is a Divine dutie and a Humane As commanded in Scripture it is a Ceremoniall dutie Divine or of the Text Iustifi of bowing P. 8. saith Doctor Page and as commanded by the Church it is also a Ceremoniall dutie Humane or of the Canon Who then aske how I am sure that this is the Truth Answer is the Church hath so expounded it If demand be how is this Opinion of the Church discerned Answer is by the Letter of the Text and in the analogie of the Truth Nor is this all I am bound by the Text and by the Church if I will not observe the Text God will punish me for disobeying the Church also And this we finde in the Scriptures he doth more grievously then sinnes immediately committed against himselfe So to looke we ought unto the Text and to the Canon And if this be halting betweene two opinions you must halt in many things or be very ignorant and because you will not be stayed by the Church in any thing you stumble often as you goe And now are fallen heavie on Doctor Page whom a good man having blessed God for him will honour for his worth and thanke for his paines Ambros sup beati immacul Ordinis ignorantia conturbat negotiorum naturam formamque meritorum and you have done what thereby you could to crack his credit which still encreaseth by your contempt You note him for halting where his judgement is most sound I 'le expresse his words because you have chopped them to spoyle his sense I must confesse saith he that when I first entred upon this businesse I thought it could not be so directly proved out of the Text. But when I had perused that Learned and judicious Prelate Bishop Andrewes upon these words who conquers where he goes c. I could not but condescend to his opinion Not that I am so peremptorie it is a dutie of the Text as you are that it is not but I am perswaded now that it may be very probably defended even out of the Text. Wherein notwithstanding if I faile the Cause in hand is no whit prejudiced being principally defended upon the Churches Authoritie But for ought I perceive yet you must bring better Reasons then any you yet alledged before you perswade me that it is no dutie of the Text. What see you here save a modest and free confession of his first thoughts His care and course not to erre his submission to the Authoritie of the Church and his confidence even at the sundry insults of his Adversarie that it is a dutie of the Text. Hee doubteth hee searcheth hee findes hee stands to it Here is no despising of Prophesying but an examining of all things a holding fast that which is good and this is Apostolicall 1. Thess 5.20.21 Will you be remembred now The time was when you held it lawfull to be done and since writ to me that it was an indifferent Ceremonie But now in this great Loose you have preached it Damnable Superstition Damnable you will have it Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worse thâ—n doubting even fraudulent and base playing on both sides Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua Yea throughout the whole Treatise he is content with any testimonie or proofe from any Authour that may give the least signification that it is but a thing indifferent yea which is to be noted that those Authours that are evidently against him