Lame Giles his haultings. Or, A briefe survey of Giles Widdovves his confutation of an appendix, concerning bowing at the name of Iesus Together with a short relation of the popish originall and progresse of this groundlesse novell ceremony: wherein Mr. Widdovves his manifold forgeries, oversights, and absurdities are in part detected; and the point, of bowing at the name of Iesus, together with that, of cringing to altars and communion-tables, is now more largely discussed. By VVilliam Prynne, an vtter-barrester of Lincolnes Inne.

A briefe Survey of Mr. Giles Widdowes his Answer to Mr. Prynne his Appendix.

IN this Answer of M. Widdowes, I shall desire you to consider these sixe particulars.

First, his injurious imputation of many false Quota∣tions to me, which Quotations are all true. To instance in some few.

Page 5: He writes in generall;a 1.1 That I have falsi∣fied [ 1] 15, nay 36 Scriptures, and fourescore primitive Fa∣thers and others. Whereas hee can never prove, that I have falsified one of them: The most of the Fathers and Authours quoted in my Appendix hee never as yet so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as read; to conclude then that I have falsified them 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ever he hath viewed them, is but an over-auda∣〈…〉〈…〉 Censure, yea a forged Calumnie; as may app•••••••••••• these particular Instances.

Page 16: He taxeth me for misquoting Calvin on Phil: 29, 10. asfirming;b 1.2 That Calvin makes no mention of the Sorbonists in this place of his. VVhereas if he will be pleased to use the helpe of his spectacles to review his [ 1] oversight, he shall finde Calvin writing thus of the Sor∣bonists in that very place. Plusquam ridiculi sunt Sorbo∣nici sophistae, qui ex praesenti loco colligunt, genu flectendum esse, quoties nomen Iesu pronunciatur, quasi vox esset ma∣gica, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam. VVhich saying of Calvin is repeated and approved by Marlorat on Phil: 2, 9, 10.

In the same 16 page, ô ridiculous ignorance! he blames [ 2] me for misquoting the Magdeburgian Centuries: in the 2. Cent: cap: 5: where there is nothing concerning bowing at the name of Iesus, no mention of the Sorbonists: VVhen

as* 1.3 my quotation in my Appendix, is Dr. Willets Synop∣sis Papismi: (which is divided into Centuries) Century 2. Error. 51. VVhere Dr. Willet handles this point of Bowing at the name of Iesus, by way of Appendix; con∣demning it for a Popish Errour, a superstitious Custome contrary to their owne popish Canons and Decrees. An Au∣thority which Mr. Widdowes can never answer.

In the 17 page, he writes; That page 398, and 399. of Dr. Whitaker his Answer to Mr. William Rainolds Re∣futation, are false Quotations. But if Mr. Widdowes, or any man else will be pleased to peruse this Answer of [ 3] Dr. Whitakers, printed at Cambridge by Iohn Legat, Anno 159••, p: 398, 399. (the Impression which I fol∣lowed in my Appendix) hee shall finde the Quotation true both for page and matter; and Dr. Whitakers opi∣nion point-blanke against the very bowing at the name of Iesus onely, which (saith he) may breede a more dan∣gerous Errour than any it can remove, to wit, that Iesus is better than Christ, which is wicked to imagine.

[ 4] Page 21: He censures me for injuring Pope Gregory the 10: and that in two particulars: first, for misquoting, secondly, for perverting his words. The misquoting is, of Sexti Decretalia, lib: 2, Tit: 23, cap: 2: for Lib: 3: De Im∣munitate Ecclesiae, cap: Decet: 6. The perverting is in my putting of onely, for chiefly. For the misquotation, if it please Mr. Widdowes to survey my Anti-Arminianisme, p: 193, number 5, in the margent; he shall finde there, that I have quoted the Booke right: For it is there, Sexti Decretalia, lib: 3, Tit: 23, cap: 2: and so it is in my Ap∣pendix too, in most Coppies; if it be not so in his, let him blame the Printer, not my selfe; so that the booke is not misquoted by mee. And whereas Mr. Widdowes to correct my false Quotation, writes; that it is, lib: 3, d 1.4 De Immunitate Ecclesiae, cap: Decet: 6: I must needes informe him, that, De Immunitate Ecclesiae, hath refe∣rence not to lib: 3: but to Tit: 23. and for the chapter, it is cap: 2: not cap: Decet: 6. So that his correction is false,

my Quotation true. For the perverting of Pope Grego∣ries words, I must needes reply, that I have not falsified Pope Gregories words, but Mr. Widdowes hath grossely misrecited mine: For whereas I write, that Pope Gre∣gory enjoynes men to bowe [especially] at the Masse; Mr. Widdowes would thrust in, onely at the Masse: So that Mr. Widdowes grossely injures me (not I Pope Gregory) in these and sundry other particulars of this nature, [ 2] which for brevity sake I here omit.

Secondly, his falsifying and grosse mistake of Coun∣cels, Fathers, and other Authorities alledged by him in his answer, to justifie the bowing at the name of Iesus. For instance in all the Councels, and Fathers, which he quotes for the Antiquity of this duty.

Page 22. To bowe at the name of Iesus is the 20. Canon of the Councel of Nice: whereas that Canon onely en∣joynes mene 1.5 to pray standing, (not kneeling) betweene Easter and Whitsontide, and on every Lords day, in token of Christs resurrection.

Page 23. The Councell of Ephesus consisting of 200 Bishops against Nestorius, hath inserted bowing at the name of Iesus among their Acts. So Binius: Tom: 1: cap: 5: p:f 1.6 685: I here being no such thing in Binius, nor in that Ephesine Councell, which commands men onely, to worship Iesus with the worship of God: but not to bowe their knees at the mention of his name; which they doe not at the recitall of the name of God.

Page 21. Hee quotes Cyril of Alexandria, for this bowing: and what are his words? Adoramus Emanue∣lem, &c. Ergo, wee must bowe at the name of Iesus: A strange inconsequent: Ergo wee must bowe at the name Emmanuel, (which none ever doe) had beene farre bet∣ter.

In the same page, he quotes Athanasius to Adelphius pag:* 1.7 69. And what are his words? Ideo adoravit, &c. Athanasius speakes it of rerum natura, when the rockes did cleave, &c. at the passion of Christ: Mr. Widdowes ap∣plies

it to the Church, in bowing at the name of Iesus: A grosse mistake.

Page 22: He quotes St. Hierom on Esay c: 45. for bow∣ing at the name of Iesus. What are his words? Moris est Ecclesiastici, &c. (I will adde the concealed words to make some sence) Christo genu flectere: It is an Eccle∣siasticall use to pray kneeling to Christ: Ergo to bow at the name of Iesus. Risum teneatis amici? Is not this more ridiculous then Ignoramus?

Page 16, 17. He misquoteth Calvin, Marlorat, the Centuries, Mr. Cartwright, and Dr. Whitaker, who all conclude against him in this point of bowing.

[ 3] Thirdly, the ridiculous absurdity of his Quotations, and his Inferences from them: for example, page 22. He quotes the 20, Canon of the Councel of Nice, from which hee must argue thus: The Councel of Nice com∣mands men to pray standing (not kneeling) on Lords-dayes, & on Pentecost, ing 1.8 remembrance of Christs resurrectiō: Ergo to bow at the name of Iesus. Page 23. Hee quotes the Councel of Ephesus; from whence he thus disputes: The Councel of Ephesus enjoynes men to worshippe Christ crucified, as God: Ergo to bow at the name of Iesus. The like Inferences he brings from Cyrill Athanasius, Hie∣rom, Calvin, the Centurists, Dr. Whitaker, and others: page 16, 17, 21, 22: (and so page 40 to 47.) All these ac∣cord, that Christ must be adored, because hee is God: Ergo we must bow at the name of Iesus. Were ever such consequents heard from an Vniversity man, a Logi∣cian, a* 1.9 Metaphysicall Divine, who is better acquainted with Essentialls, Essentiates, and their modalities, (as it seemes by his 2, 3, 13 and 14 pages) then with the que∣stion now in controversie, or with any Article of his Creed?

Fourthly, the Tautologies, Chasmes, confusion, ill-connexion, and immethodicall disorder of his stile, his matter, which hath no more dependancy, order, art, or method, then Tom Coriots Travells, or Lady Davis her

Comment upon Daniel, whose halting stile Lame Giles hath followed.

Fifthly, his vaine idle tearmes of art, brought in by [ 5] head and shoulders, to make schollers thinke hee were once more frentique, or Country Clownes beleeve hee were some Conjurer: VVitnesse his Essentialls, Essen∣tiates, and their modalities, which have confounded the fanatique Professour, (to wit the Authour) and over∣throwne his chaire: page 2, 3: His reall morall Correlation, his internall Relations, Entities, Causations, Inherence, Products, and mutuall dependence, &c: which Mr. Prynne understands not: page 14, nor yet Mr, Widdowes himselfe as I suppose; if his braines be now as crazie as I have knowne them.

Sixthly, his absurd invective scurrilous railing passages [ 6] against the Church and Doctrine of* 1.10 Geneva, which Doctrine is the same with ours: page 6, 7. A passage so vile, so venemous, that it deserves at least the Ferula, if not the rod of his Mother Vniversity, who would blush to authorize such absurdities, such lies, such passages and frentique Treatises for the Presse, as these.

Ex ungue leonem; by this short Survey of some few pages, you may judge of all this Animals book, how false, how vaine it is.

This (my deare Mother) was the Survey of some few printed pages of Mr. Widdowes his Confutation, which I sent inclosed in my Letrer to your Vice-Chancellour, who had time enough to correct them, to suppresse them ere the booke came forth.

At the very selfesame time I wrote another friendly Letter to Mr. Widdowes, in which I admonished him of these his oversights, advising him to correct them ere his Confutation came to publike light; the Contents of which Letter•• (that so you may see my condour to∣wards him, who is so full of causelesse gall and bitternes towards me) I have here subscribed.

MR. Widdowes, I understand that your Answer to my Appendix, about bowing at the name of Iesus, is almost finished at the Presse; in which Answer of your•• there are sundry false Quotations, Inconsequents, Over∣sights, and grosse mistakes, which for Colledge and old-acquaintance sake I thought good to admonish you of in time, that so you might correct them before you publish them to the world, for feare of after-claps. It is not the common use of adverse Writers, to acquaint one another privately with their slips before hand; but my love and mildnesse towards you is such, in regard wee were once fellow-collegians, that I would rather antici∣pate, than take advantage of your errours. Mistake me not, as though I wrote this to you to* 1.11 suppresse your answer: alas, it's so illiterate, so absurdly impertinent in most things, that I rather pitty than feare it: My onely meaning is, to forestall your printed Oversights, (not your Answer:) which are so many, so absurd, that most will deeme you crackt-braind when you penned, if not the Licenser hare-braind when hee authorized them. What these your Misquotations, Oversights, and Absurdities are, you may learne from Mr. Vice-Chan∣cellour, to whom I have now sent a Survey of them, which I would wish you to peruse. To give you a touch of some of them in a word: Dictum sapienti sat est. Page 16. You taxe me for misquoting the Magde∣burgian Centuries, when as I quote not them, but Dr. Willets 2. Century of Popish Errors: Error: 51. Page 17. You censure me for misquoting Dr. Whitaker: p: 398, 399: which quotation is true in that Edition of Cambridge: 1590: which I follow. Page 16: You reprehend me for misquoting Calvin on Phil: 2: 9, 10: as if he made there no mention of the Sorbonists; as in truth he doth. Page 22. You vouch the 20 Cannon of the Councell of Nice, which commands men to pray standing on Lords-dayes and Pentecoft, as a direct authority for bowing at the name of Iesus. Page 21, 22, 23. You absurdly misapply the

passages you quote out of the Councell of Ephesus, Cyril, Athanasius, Hierom, and others, to bowing at the name of Iesus, when as their words import not any such thing, as you may see, if you will but peruse them once againe. These few, together with an hundred such like over∣sights, which I spare to mention, are sufficient to informe you, how open you lie unto my lash, which you may chance to feele, if you will needes make your selfe an Ignoramus, or a Foole in print. Stripes are prepared for the backe of Fooles, Prov: 19, 29: and I have some in store for you, if you expunge not these your errors ere they come to publicke light. Lo, I have forewarned you as a private Friend, and if you take not this my warning; you must excuse me if I fall foule upon these your Oversights as an open Adversary. Thus much for your bowing.

For your Schismaticall Puritan, which you strive to justifie in your first and second pages. I must informe you of 4 mistakes committed in it: The first is in the very De∣finition of a Puritan, which most besides your selfe define to be, not, A Protestant Non-conformist, as you; but, * 1.12 A Protestant scared out of his* 1.13 wits: and how neare this definition may concerne your selfe, and whether it makes not you, at least a simple, if not a* 1.14 double Puritan, I leave you to consider. The second is in the Genus of a Puritan; which you make a Protestant, but falsly, yea absurdly; since a Protestant is not the Genus of Novatians, Cathe∣rists, Donatists, or Papists; (who were never yet repu∣ted Protestants, and were long before the name of Pro∣testants was knowne;) who yet are true and reall Puri∣tans both by your owne and others confession. The third is in the Differentia Essentialis of a puritan; which, say you, is a Nonconformist: which difference, as it ex∣cludes all Papists from being Puritans, because they are most conformable to any ceremonies, especially to this, of bowing at the name of Iesus; (which contradicts your first Species of a Puritan, in which you include the Pa∣pist:) so it makes all forraigne reformed Churches, Puri∣tans,

(which I hope you dare not say) they being not conformable to our Cerememonies: and withall it thwarts Bishop Mountagues distinction, of Conformable and Inconformable Puritans: of Puritans in Doctrine, not in Discipline: of* 1.15 Tantum non in Episcopat•• Puritani: and I hope you dare not controll this learned Bishop. The fourth, is in the Species of a Puritan; which say you are ten; there being ten severall* 1.16 Puritanities: But this is onely Endymionis somnium. For the Perfectist, the first Species; which say you is the Novatian Catherist and Papist, are no Protestants; Ergo no Species of a Paritan, whose Genus you make a Protestant. Moreover, the Brownists and Anabaptists (to omit the other severall Species of Puritans, which have no specificall difference betweene them) are no Protestants, neither in doctrine, nor in discipline: Protestants disclaime them, and they Protestants, from whom they sever and divide them∣selves even altogether: therefore they are no Puritans, because no Protestants. These severall Oversights I thought good to recommend to your second & more re∣fined sober thoughts; which if you impudently publish to the world without fear or wit, before some caftigati∣ons passe upon thē, are as so many wandring Bedlās very like to tast of the whipping-post: and I doubt not but their stripes will prove your smart. Thus desiring your favora∣ble acceptation of this my friendly admonition, together with the resolution of these ten Queries in your Reply to this my Letter, or in some Appendix to your Answer: viz.

[ 1] What ancient Fathers or Authours can be produced to prove this bowing at the recitall of the name of Iesus•• a duty of the Text, and what are their names?

[ 2] What Fathers or ancient Records doe testifie, that bowing at the name of Iesus was used in the primitive Church; and what are their words?

[ 3] VVhat ancient Authorities there are before Zanchius, Whitguift, or H••••ker, which testifie, that bowing at

the name of Iesus was used in the time of Arrius?

VVhether there be any one Father, who speakes di∣rectly [ 4] and punctually of bowing at the name of Iesus; and who he is if any such there be?

VVhether Popes, or Popish Councels and Authours [ 5] were not the first broachers, and chiefe propagatours of this Ceremony?

What difference is there betweene Papists and Prote∣stants [ 6] bowing at the name of Iesus, since Protestants con∣demne them for this Ceremony, and yet doe use it?

VVhat reasons are there, that men should bow onely [ 7] at the name of Iesus, more than at the name of Saviour, which is the same with Iesus; or at the name of Emma∣nuel, God, or the like?

Why men should rather bow at the mention of the [ 8] second than of the first person in the Trinity,* 1.17 since Christ himselfe tells us, Iohn 5, 23: That all men must honour the Sonne, even as they honour the Father, and no other∣wise: and Phil: 2, 10: informes us, that Christ by this his exaltation is onely, in the glory (as the Fathers and o∣thers reade it) not above the glory of God the Father, at whose name none ever bow?

VVhether the sole bowing at the name of Iesus, be [ 9] not superstition in the opinion of Dr. Willet, Dr. Fulke, Pareus, and other Protestant VVriters? And why men should rather bow at the pronunciation of the name of Iesus, than at the sight of it in a Bible, a wall, a glasse-window, or in the frontispice of a Iesuites workes, be∣fore all which it is prefixed; since at the name of Iesus, may be as aptly applied to the eye, as to the eare; to the sight, as to the sound or hearing of the name of Iesus?

Whether the not bowing at every recitall of the name [ 10] of Iesus in time of Divine service be a sinne or no? (as it must needes be if it be a duty of the Text:) And why it should be a duty in time of Divine service and Sermons onely, (in which of all other times it is most needlesse to expresse mens reverence, subjection, and high respect to

Iesus: because every part of divine service, especially * 1.18 kneeling in prayer, prayers unto Iesus, and in the name of Iesus, are nothing else but an ample testimony of our service, thankfulnesse and subjection to him as our Lord and Saviour) rather than a duty at other times, when men shew lesse reverence, and submission unto Iesus; and are more apt to abuse and profane his sacred name?

I take my farewell of you; commending your Errours to your owne castigation, and your selfe to Mr. Vice-Chancellours better instruction: and so I rest

Lincolnes Inne. October 20. 1630.

Your loving Friend, WILLIAM PRYNNE••

Notes

• a 1.1

  This is thri•••• repea∣ted; page 5, 60. and 68. lest Dulman his reader should forget it; and at last he prints it in hls Errata too, that all might know it is but a trebl•• Errour.
• b 1.2

  Yet himself in his Errata confesseth it to be an Errour.
• * 1.3

  This himselfe acknowledg∣eth in his Er∣rata, under which Title his whole Confu∣tation (which is nothing else but a Chaos of all-compacted Errours) may be most aptly placed
• d 1.4

  See Sexti Decretalia Pa∣ris. 1507. fol. 187. the Edi∣tion which I follow.
• e 1.5

  Quoniam sunt in Domi∣nica die qui∣dem ad orati∣onem genua flectentes, & in diebus Pen∣tecostes, placuit de hoc sanctae & magnae Sy∣nodo, cunctos in omnibus lo∣cis consonan∣ter et consenti. enter stantes Dominum ora•• redebere, Su∣rius Tom, 1. p 347.
• f 1.6

  For pag. 687 Edit. Coloniae Ag••ip: 1606. the Edition in Oxford Li∣brary, which Mr. Widdowes (who hath converted all his bookes into good liquor) followes.
• * 1.7

  For page 53. 54. Edit Pari∣siis 1608•• in Si•• Thomas Bod∣lies Library.
• g 1.8

  Of which custome, with the reason of it, you may reade, Concil. Carthag 6. Can. 20. Con∣cil. Constanti∣••op. 6. Can 90 Concil ••ute∣nens•• sub Car. magno, Can. 37. Gratian. Distinctio 3. Iustin Martyr, Explie. Quaest. Christ. •• Gent. positarum. Quaest. 115. Hierom. adver. Luci••erianos, c. 4. And these prayers were stiled Statio∣nes. Tertu••••d Vxorem, cap. 3. &c advers. Psy∣chicos lib.
• * 1.9

  Page 1. line 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.10

  Which Church, the first reformers of our Church, and all our godly Martyrs highly magni∣fied, especially for her Ortho∣dox Doctrines, how ever some contemn•• and hate her now.
• * 1.11

  Yet even a foole when hee holdeth his peace, is coun∣ted wise, Prov. 17. 28.
• * 1.12

  Est vir ftul∣tus, inconsul∣tus, expers rati∣one, mente cap∣tus & decep∣tus, &c.
• * 1.13

  Mr. Wid∣dowes hath bin once, and most say, twice dis∣tracted; and would you not think so by his writing? there∣fore by this de∣finition hee is twice a Puri∣tan.
• * 1.14

  See Iohn Whites Way to the true Church, sect. 4. num. 19, p. 141 who writes, that Papists are the Puritans.
• * 1.15

  See his Ap∣peale to Caesar
• * 1.16

  See his Con∣futation, pag. 2.
• * 1.17

  The reason of this Quere I have now ad∣ded; with the reasons of the two ensuing Queries.
• * 1.18

  This himself acknowledg∣eth; p. 84. l. 28, 29, 30, 1.