A defence of A treatise against superstitious Iesu-worship, falsely called scandalous, against the truely scandalous answer of the parson of Westminston in Sussex. Wherein also the whole structure of his Antiteichisma, so farre as it concernes the po[i]nt in controversie is overthrowne, the truth more fully cleared, and the iniquitie of that superstition more throughly detected. By M.G. the author of the former treatise, published Anno Dom. 1642

SECTION I.

VVHerein I demonstrate,* 1.1 first, what Name above every Name cannot be; and secondly what it is: and first I say it is not to be understood of a bare proper name which makes M^r. Barton very snuffe,* 1.2 and tels me that my disease is Melancho∣lia, & tends to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and layes to my charge ignorantia Elenchi, in saying that they doe not devest the name above every name to bare letters, and syllables, and that they doe not take the name without the sense: but what if himselfe doe utterly mistake the question? for by a bare name I intend not any name simply debarred of sense, but first a proper name considered Seorsim and apart by it selfe. And secondly such a name that is not answe∣rable in a true relative sense to names subjected to it. My first reason, Sir, you needed not to have been offended with, for I ex∣cept it as you see from a reason infallible, but take it as probable, and as an introduction to those reasons that are more sure. My second and third Reasons taken from the analogie of the Scrip∣tures you take to be nothing, and include them in the former, but you are mistaken, and where can you finde these phrases, A great Name, or Name above another, taken from a proper namein this sense in any part of Scripture? My fourth reason you frivo∣lously slight, you deny that if the Name above every Name be a pro∣per Name, the subjected Names must be proper Names also; this is to deny evident plaine reason, for is there not a manifest relation betweene a proper Name, and proper Names? But you say, if I meane a Name in the sense of it, the Name Jesus is above every Name whatsoever, yea above the Name of God, which is a feare∣full assertion, for if you meane the Name of God considered by it selfe as a name, then because it is plaine by the Text that every Name below this highest Name must bow knees to that Name, then it will follow, that besides the Names of the Creatures the

Name of God must bow to the Name Jesus: this will bee laid to your charge, avoyd it if you can. But if you will not have the Name Jesus referred to names, then it must bee referred to the powers of things subjected, then it will follow, that excepting not God, God himselfe must bow to the Name Jesus: impute not blasphemy to mee, it is direct blasphemie in you by your own doctrine, and because you see it lies upon you, you rage and raile. Now then seeing Name above every Name cannot be un∣derstood of a bare proper Name in the sense above spoken, there∣fore it followes that it cannot be understood of the Name Je∣sus, because the name in the Text is a name of power and au∣thoritie, as that parallel place proves it, Matth. 28. 18. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, all power is given me. So Master Calvin on that place,

Quo etiam pertinet illud Pauli, to which pertaines that of Paul, hee emptied himselfe, wherefore God exalted him, and gave him a name, which is above every name.

Again, the scope of the name proves it, for Subjection must be given in this name signified by bowing the knee, Authority & subjection are relatives, there is no Subjection due where there is no Power or Authority. Now the Name Jesus is a name of Salvation, and not a name properly denoting Com∣mand and Authority.

Secondly, though it should be granted that the Name Jesus is a name of Authority, yet it is not a name of the highest Authority, Doctor Page your own witnesse shall be Judge, whom you judge unreproveable in his judgement,* 1.3 who in his answer to Master Prynnes Reply to Widdowes; Master Prynne having brought many places to prove that the name Christ denominates Christs Sa∣craments, his Church, his Apostles, his Ministers, his Saints, his King∣dome; and therefore a Name especially venerable amongst Christians, doth acknowledge that the name Christ may be of greater Au∣thoritie and dignitie then the Name Jesus, though not of greater savour and mercy. Now let Doctor Page with all his learning, and Master Barton with all his Sophistrie reconcile this if they can, how the Name Jesus can be above every name, yet it be possible that any other name may be of greater dignitie and authority than it, seeing Name in the Text doth expresly de∣note dignitie and authoritie.

Thirdly, thought it should be granted that the Name Jesus is of highest authority in regard of the Church only, yet in this respect neither can it be the name above every name in the Text, for

this name is of highest authority in regard of the whole creati∣on, heaven and earth, and therefore without controversie in re∣spect of Angels, Devils, and all men whatsoever, according to the forecited place, Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in heaven and earth. Christ in this name commands the whole heaven and earth. Now the Name Jesus cannot command the Angels, be∣cause to them he is not Jesus by redemption, as the name signi∣fies; much lesse can it command the Devills; and it cannot com∣mand the whole earth, for many nations have no knowledge of his written Law, much lesse the Gospell; therefore neither doth he command them as Jesus, neither can any of these submit and bow to him as Jesus. Therefore here the Name Jesus stan∣deth as a bare name to Angels, devills, reprobates, and many na∣tions of the earth. And let not Master Barton be angry if I af∣firme that he and his fellowes adore the bare Name Jesus. For first understanding the Text of the Name Jesus they appoint the bowing to the Name onely,* 1.4 and not to the person, as I have pro∣ved, and they cannot intend it to the person except they adde to the Text. Secondly, when the person of our Saviour is as fully denominated under his other titles, as Jesus, they move not, but onely at the name Jesus. Thirdly, when they stand or sit to heare the Word, a gesture allowable by the Word, as soone as the Name Jesus is mentioned they immediatly bow, and when oftentimes the great mercy of God in saving us is largely and copiously laid open in a Sermon, or when in rea∣ding of a Chapter many excellent sentences are related, wherein the sense of our salvation is more clearely notified to our under∣standing then by the Name Jesus, yet there is no stirre, no ado∣ration, but onely at the Name Jesus, no not at the title Saviour, which is the very sense of the name Jesus, and better understood of all. Fourthly, it is ordinary with these men, when they be upon their knees at the prayers to God and Christ, then to make a speciall incurvation of the body at the sound of Jesus, a plaine argument that these men are guilty of Syllabicall worship, and worship the bare name more then God or Christ himselfe. That I alone doe not so charge them, Master* 1.5 Calvin and Master* 1.6 Ba∣bington do both of them lay syllable worship to their charge. There∣fore I returne Master Bartons scoffes upon himselfe, and I would faine see, how not poore silly flies, but such mighty Elephants, as

this Saphister is, can escape out of these nets: and therefore his Crambe so often Cocta cast upon me is more then ridiculous, viz. Name above every name as a bare name cannot be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare name, and this shall serve to answer it every where when it is brought. To the second part, viz. If it should be understood of a proper name, yet may it not bee un∣derstood of the Name Jesus; my first reason is, because the word Jesus doth no where denote the name Jesus, but onely Matth. 1. 21. and Luke 2. 21. where it must needs so signifie; but hee will have my meaning to be this, that the word Jesus doth not sig∣nifie the word Jesus, which is a Crotchet of his owne devising: I say the word Jesus doth not signifie the name, not the word, your instance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to signifie Jehovah in the old Testa∣ment is nothing to the purpose; for I speake here of Jesus; nei∣ther is the Parallel brought right, for you should have produ∣ced where the word Jehovah is taken for the Name Jehovah, and if you did, it is besides the Question, which is onely there con∣cerning the Name Jesus. But you can prove, you say, that name is often used for Jesus, and instance in one place, which if true, it is not for your turne, for you must prove that Jesus is taken for the Name Jesus, but that place of Acts 5. 41. is not for you; doth the Apostle speake there barely of the name or appel∣lation Jesus? you thought belike you should never be answered; these be the words, they rejoyced that they were counted worthy to suf∣fer rebuke for his name: what is name taken for the name Jesus here properly? did the Appellation Jesus offend the Apostles enemies? did not they call him Jesus as well as the Apostles. This is that offended them, for preaching that Jesus: not the name but person was the Christ; no quarrell at all about the name Jesus: Would it be thought that one that professeth himselfe such a Scholler as Master Barton is should run into such an absurditie? To my second reason, viz. that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is never taken for the name Jesus, you object that I take the word without the sense; but Sir you must not take the sense without the name: the question is about the name Jesus as a name, and though you take the sense with it, yet you cannot bring any Scripture for this interpre∣tation: but because you cannot answer this reason, therefore you put it off with a scoffe. In the next place you affirme that in this phrase 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is the genitive case, and not the

dative, and so you will have it read not in or at the name Jesus; but name of Jesus: therefore it pleaseth you Sect. 5. Page 36. in your learned scurrilous language to call me a Jugler, a Thiefe, a beguiler of the people, and that I have put the theft impu∣dently on the Church, for turning the Genitive case into the case of the Nonne; but what Sir, if I prove you to be the Jugler, and the thiefe? for if you will have it read in or at the name of Jesus, then I agree with you; you know I am content to un∣derstand it so too; but here now will be a great doubt, what is meant by the Name of Jesus. If by the word Jesus you doe under∣stand the person, Name is generall, and many senses may be made, then my sense of the Name of power and glory will come in fairely, then any other name of Christ may come in to bee the name as well as Jesus, as Christ, Emmanuel, Mediatour, which are all names of Jesus, as well as Jesus▪ yea in better congruity of speech, these may be called name of Jesus, then the name Jesus, But if by the word Jesus you meane the name Jesus, and yet will not have it be in apposition with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then the sense will bee thus, at the name of the name Jesus, which will be very senselesse; therefore by these words, in the name of Jesus you must read name Jesus, or else no body understands you: yea your owne friends read it so, as* 1.7 Sutton; yea you quote* 1.8 Origen to call it so, yea * 1.9 you your selfe doe call it so: let the world judge now, who is the deceiver or Jugler, you or I.

To my third reason that Jesus was a communicable name, therefore not the name above every name, your answer is ex∣treamely scurrilous. First you say, I am neare to Atheisme for questioning such learned men as Bishop Andrewes and Doctor Page, but how you can make it good unlesse you put them in the place of God I know not. I hope Sir, truth is not confined to a Bishops Rotchet nor a Doctors Chaire, but you by your owne reason are as neare Atheisme as my selfe for questioning Bellar∣mine with whom you cannot compare for learning.* 1.10 This I say, that whereas your two friends affirme that sundry men were called Christs, therefore Christ is a communicable name, I an∣swered: These were no more called Christs then others were called Saviours, Nehe. 9. 27. And though you reply, that none of these were called Saviours as Jesus was a Saviour; so I say that none of these were called Christs as Jesus was Christ. So here I

have taken off your two friends, and your selfe, and in this wee areeven. But here I have the better of you. Some were called Jesus either by speciall providence, or generall allowance, as by an ordinary Name to be called by, but none might be called Christ in an ordinary Name to be called by, without horrible blasphemy. And whereas you deny this, and seeme to affirme that some are called Christs without offence, by an ordinary Name to be cal∣led by, as you instance in Christopher and Christian, it is ridicu∣lous; what, is Christopher Christ? it is no more Christ, then Mary the mother of our Lord is the Lord himselfe: and if you think you are called Christ when called Christian, I tell you plainely you are a very Antichrist. My quotation of Ʋrsin is ad idem, for I cite him onely to this end, to shew that Joshuah had his name given him by a speciall providence; and if Moses gave him the name, is doth the more confirme it.

To my fourth reason, viz. because the Name Jesus was given to Christ in the beginning of his humiliation; therefore it cannot be the Name above every Name in the Text, which was given him at his exaltation; you answer nothing, but referre mee to your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Pag. 13, 14, 15. and what doe I finde there? that two or three doe say that Christs Name was manifested after the re∣surrection, but not any to apply it to the Name Jesus. This Name needeth no manifestation, because hee was all along so called; as God indeed his Name was manifested, but as man the Name was then given him; Name here is the highest glorifi∣cation of the humane nature as generally the best expositors doe understand the Text.

But if you can produce any place to prove that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth signifie to manifest or declare, I will the sooner incline to your opinion; and according to your owne reason, a literall-sense, admitting no absurditie, and expressing a cleare truth, is to bee preferred before a mysticall. Now you scoffing at our figurative interpretation of some clauses, though warranted by Scripture, doe make a mysticall sense here no where warranted. Now that give is to be taken here properly, the Analogie of the Text, and the order of the words will evidence; for the Name given here is Gods free rewarding of Christ after his obedience & sufferings as is plaine by the Text; which if it were onely by the mani∣festation of his former Name, it is not so proper, as by giving him

that glory which he had not before; Secondly, the words are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there being no article before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 it is plaine it hath no relation to any proper Name then called by. Againe it being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hee gave a name to him, not his Name, it is evident it is a gift not before had. I doe not deny it to be understood of some Name or Names that Christ as God had before, as God Jehovah, Sonne of God, for so they may after a sort be called a gift, for these names being laid downe in his humiliation, restoring is a kinde of giving; much more as the glory of these Names are given to the humane nature. For whereas he was before called by these glorious names, as God onely, now he is so called as God, and Man. And there∣fore though Zanchius doe understand it of the name of God ma∣nifested,* 1.11 yet he affirmes it to be a reall gift, viz. as the humane nature is honoured thereby; but in no sense can it be understood of the declaration of the Name Jesus, which Name was never denied him: therefore saith Zanchius, alii pro nomine Jesu, sed mi∣nus comm••de; others understand it, saith he, for the name Jesus, but lesse fitly, because before the resurrection he was called Jesus by all. To have the name Jesus declared after the resurrection is not properly an advancement of Christ* 1.12. Therefore is it not the name above every Name. If you Mr. Barton, should present one of your Bookes to your Godfather, and he to gratifie you, should give to you your Name Thomas, or declare your name Thomas, which he gave you before, I thinke you would not thinke your selfe to receive much honour by such a gift or declaration. Cer∣tainly if the Name above every Name bee but the declaration of the name Jesus, he should have more given him at his Circumci∣sion then at his exaltation; for a gift is more then the declaration of it. If any thing were now added to the name Jesus, then was not his name perfect at the first; and you may as well say that Christ had not a perfect office,* 1.13 or that he did not offer up a perfect sa∣crifice, as that the Name Jesus was not perfect. You say your selfe, as the Names of things are, so should their vertues be estee∣med: I pray, Sir, wherein doth the eminencie of the Name Jesus appeare after the resurrection? in all your treatise I doe not see but you make it to consist in this, that it signifieth a Saviour, but so it signified before, and so it signified after he had wrought salvation for us by his death; to what purpose then was the sense

of the name given him, when the nature of the name, especially after the worke was finished, declares it of it selfe? if then the advancement of Christs Name after the resurrection bee no more then the declaring of the Name Jesus, God should but mocke his Sonne, and indeed give him no more honour, or not so much as he gave him before.

To my fifth reason, that Jesus cannot be the Name above ove∣ry Name, because Jesus was advanced after his resurrection to bee Lord and Christ, Act. 2. 36. you have nothing to say to it, but ac∣cuse me of Arianisme, as if say you Jesus was not the same be∣fore, that he was declared to be after the resurrection, Lord, and Christ. I answer, though Jesus were so before, yet he was not honoured so before in respect of the humane nature, for so hee was advanced to that honour. If Jesus were the highest Name; how could Jesus come to be more highly advanced in becom∣ming Lord and Christ?* 1.14 And here I must put you in mind of an horrible absurdity of your opinion; you affirme that the name Christ is the Name onely of the humanity, the Name Iesus the essentiall Name of God; then by this your doctrine, according to this Text, Christ God in the time of his humiliation should be ex∣alted in being made man, when he was advanced after his re∣surrection. That which I noted as considerable, is still as con∣siderable as it was: hee was most commonly called Jesus in the time of his humiliation, but after his Resurrection, and Ascension, hee was most commonly called Christ; and when called Iesus, more commonly with the addition of Lord, and Christ, then Iesus onely. I have run over the whole new Testament, and I finde to the utmost of my search, Iesus alone named before the ascension 490. times.

• Christ alone but 40. times.
• Lord Iesus but once.
• Iesus Christ, six times.
• Lord Iesus Christ not at all.

After the Ascension.

• Christ alone is used 238. times.
• Iesus alone but 45. times.
• Lord Iesus. 32. times.
• Iesus Christ or Christ Iesus 125. times.
• Lord Iesus Christ 95. times.

Well then hence I argue that it is impossible that the Name Jesus should be the proper Name of the Deitie, and Christ of he humanitie; for then should hee be most commonly called God in the time of his humiliation, when his God-head was veyled, when Christ called himselfe the Sonne of man, and most com∣monly called Man in the time of his exaltation, after that hee had mightily declared himselfe to be the sonne of God; which were utterly senselesse to imagine.

But before I leave this, I will note a contradiction in Doctor Page, your infallible witnesse, who in his answer to Mr. Prynnes Appendix *,* 1.15 makes Jesus to be the name of the Deitie, Christ of the humanitie;* 1.16 yet in his answer to his Reply *, he affirmes, as I noted before, that Christ is a name of greater dignitie and au∣thoritie then Jesus: hence it will follow that our Saviour is of greater dignitie and authoritie as man then as God; let this be reconciled if it can.

Your answer to my fixt reason is nothing but senselesse scur∣rility. Whereas I say, God in advancing his Sonne above all ex∣cepted himself, and no where is Christs Name said to be advan∣ced above divine Names, but created onely; I overthrow here no gracious dispensation that you can prove from the word, for though the high advancement of the Sonne be to the glory of every Person, yet hath he not a Name or glory above them. And if you can prove it otherwise by Scripture, why doe you speake of Scripture, and alledge none?

Seing Name above every Name cannot bee understood of the name Jesus,* 1.17 I understand it of the supereminent glory of Christ, up∣on these reasons. To let alone your scoffe at my transition, for you can doe nothing else, take the sense and the Name together if you will, I deny it not. First I say it is no way contrary to the Analogie of faith, so to understand it, for Name is common∣ly taken for glory in Scripture. To this, your exception is no∣thing; for from hence I gather that this exposition is agreea∣ble to the Scripture.

Secondly, Name of God doth usually in Scripture denote the power and glory of God either implicitly of expressely: hence also I gather that my exposition is acoording to the Scripture; But you will have this make as much for you as me, but you cannot, For whether 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the Lord, or no, is nothing to the purpose, our question is about a Name, not Per∣son.

This I can tell you, Sir, you cannot finde Name prefixed be∣fore any of the titles of God; as Name of God, or Lord, or Jesus, &c. to denote the name God or Lord; therefore are the Scrip∣tures against your exposition, though plaine for me.

To my third reason, you have more cause to blush for your fri∣volous exception, than I for affirming that it is more agreeable to Scripture to understand name for the supereminent power and glory of Christ, then otherwise; for you see I answer on by degrees in my reasons. My first and second, as a great Name, and Name above another; are two distinct phrases, and doe every where signifie not a proper Name, but onely glory: but you will have this to be against me, for, say you, if a great Name doe signifie the great glory of the person, then it is not the glory, for signum is not signa∣tum. I reply signe, and the thing signified are the same materi∣ally, and though when they stand in opposition they differ; yet otherwise the signe doth often denote the thing signified; and they are the same.

To my fourth reason, that it must be understood of Power and Glory here, and not of the Name Jesus; for so it fits the words of the Text agreeable to other Scriptures, for name being here the gift which God gave him, other correspondent Scriptures doe shew that power and glory was that gift, as Matth. 28. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 21. You answer here nothing at all to those Scriptures; but one∣ly cavill against my reason. If, say you, the gift be power and glo∣ry, the Apostle should idem per idem agere. No Sir, I have proved Sect. 12. that these words, God gave him a name, are but an am∣plification of Christs advancement, and the Apostle doth no more idem per idem agere, then he doth Ephes. 12. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 21. where it is said God raised Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, where the first clause expresseth one maine degree of his exaltati∣on, the second is an amplification of it. Next you thinke to encounter mee with a Dilemma. If Name bee power and glo∣ry, then say you, it must be created or increated. Created it can∣not be say you, and be the name above every name; if increate, then you say it is Arianisme to affirme that it was then gi∣ven him; your Dilemma is nothing. It is first created power and glory, and so it is above all created glories, though not increated. Secondly, it is created, though not given to the essence of God, but to the humane nature to enjoy, and so also it is onely above all created glories. Your argument in the con∣clusion,

is but a meere begging of the question without proofe, and there is an equivocation in the minor, you must tell mee what name you meane by the Name of Jesus, seeing you will not have it read the Name Jesus.

To my fifth reason, taken from the scope and coherence of the Text, viz. that the conjunction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 declares a correspendence of Christs exaltation according to the distinct branches of his humiliation, which answers directly to Christs glory and dignity, which hee departed from, but nothing at all to the name Jesus; there being nothing spoken in the Text of a bare title, but of the person of our Saviour. First you question me for observing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉;* 1.18 but so doth your owne Author Zanchy as well as I: it is but a frivolous catch. This 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 doth demonstrate say you, what I care not to see, that hee whose person was so aviled, and his name, you meane the Name Jesus, put out by an accursed death, was superexalted in both. Sir, I care to see any thing that is in the Text, but not the fantasies of your braine. Next you challenge me for saying that Christ departed from his glory: but what do I say more then the Apostle, He emptied him∣selfe; or more then Zanchy,* 1.19 Nomen Dei deposuit, cum deposuit gloriam, laying down being a kind of leaving wherein I doe not meane as this malecontent seemes to challenge me, as if Christ ever ceased to be God, but only that he was not so honoured by the world in regard of the veile of his humanitie: And this shall serve to answer this exception, where ever it is mentioned: next when you cannot fa••ten any reason for your opinion upon the Text, nor answer my reason drawne thence, you goe about to fumble up a reason by asking a question, by which you say you will condemne me out of my owne mouth, which is this; A person is humbled; and who is that person? I must answer the Sonne of God: and what is his Name? I must answer say you, Phil. 2. 9. 10. his name is Jesus: (but soft Sir, there is nothing spoken there of a bare name, but person) then Jesus say you was the name so hum∣bled, and consequently the name so advanced. Is not this fine learned stuffe? If the Name Jesus suffered as the person suffered, then it will follow that the name Jesus died, rose againe, and now sits at the right hand of God; and then where will you have it to bow to? if it must needs be that the Name fares as the person fares, because it is so and so with the person, therefore

it must be so, and so with the name. Then I wonder that Tho∣mas Barton being afraid that himselfe should be punished for his demerits, that he was not afraid left his Name Thomas should be punished, and why then did he bring his Name Thomas to open light when himselfe was afraid to appeare? It is no mervaile that those that set themselves to resist the truth should runne into such ridiculous nonsense. This argument of yours drawne from the suffering of the Name Jesus is the best you have; yet is it a senselesse one, not so much as intimated in the Text, or any o∣ther Scripture, nor agreeable to reason. Let the reader judge, whether your comparison in the beginning of the Sieve hol∣ding the course, and letting goe the fine, which you impute to my Section, doe not befall your answer to it. But as you have an∣swered this Section, so have you done all the rest.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Name above every Name what it is not.
• * 1.2

  Whose disease I pray tended to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that was among the Cavaliers, in habite and posture of war as a Cavalier?
• * 1.3

  Pag. 197.
• * 1.4

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.5

  On Phil 2. 9.
• * 1.6

  Exposi∣tion of the Creede.
• * 1.7

  Learne to live, Chap. 14. Pag. 217.
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 36.
• * 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 22.
• * 1.10

  An••…••…. p. 3.
• * 1.11

  On Phil. 2. 9. 10.
• * 1.12

  Your selfe say, that the declaration of a thing is not more wor∣thy then the thing, Part. 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pag. 15.
• * 1.14

  Part 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.15

  Page 55.
• * 1.16

  Page 197.
• * 1.17

  Name above every Name, what it is.
• * 1.18

  On Phil. 2. 9.
• * 1.19

  De natura Dei ••. 1. c. 17.