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

A Reply to a Counter-scarfe, Written by Master Barton; con∣cerning bowing at the Name of IESVS, Anno 1642. (Book 1)

MAster Barton in the latter part of his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 reades a Lecture of humilitie, but in his Epistle Dedicatory, before his answer, he beginneth with a proud brag, wherein he shewes how well hee puts in practise his owne doctrine. He saith he answered my Treatise in 10. dayes of Au∣gust last: Now this is to let the world un∣derstand, that many of my bookes were in the Country on the 19. of July, 1642. and I can prove that he had one of them amongst the first, and it cannot be thought that he would be idle altogether til the busie time of August; but I wonder that he would take so much time about it, seeing hee boasted after he had sent me that scurrilous answer to my foure Arguments in Aprill before, that he had overthrowne my whole Treatise in halfe an houre: a strange dull fit came upon him, as it seemes to take but halfe an houre then, but now ten dayes. Now to shew the impudency of this bragge, I will declare the truth of all: Almost two yeares agone hee being at my house, I read into him my whole opening of the Text. In the Spring, 1642. meeting him by occasion in the presence of a Gentleman, and others, he seemed to be very faire with me, and meekely re∣quested

me to send him some of my Arguments, affirming that if he saw weight in them that hee would yeeld, promising that when he had perused them he would returne them againe; and send me the grounds of his opinion. I therefore sent him those foure arguments above specified, at large with their proofes, which hee hitherto keepeth by him, and would not returne them, neither would hee send his grounds according to pro∣mise: Is this equity? nay is it honesty? but it is such honesty as well becommeth Master Barton.

Besides, almost two yeares agoe I sent him another Argument. First and last in conference, and otherwise, I know not one Ar∣gument but he hath been acquainted with: and he knew as long agoe as September 1641. that I would set out my booke; and yet this man hath the face to say that hee answered my whole booke in ten dayes. To adde to this, in one passage of his booke he layes to my charge that my booke is a monster of three yeares hatching;* 1.1 great oddes, his brood but ten dayes in hatch∣ing, mine three yeares; But this is the truth, finding this grosse superstition to take so much in the Countie by those superstiti∣ous teachers, and some ignorants in my owne parish to bee stag∣gard with it, I something more then three yeares agoe delivered as much against it as amounted to the quantitie of an houre and a halfe at two severall Sermons, and then left it, onely being ready to encounter with any of that opinion, as occasion should serve, and never thought to come in print, till I had re∣ceived abuses by these men, and so with as much convenient speed as other businesses would give mee leave, I wrote it out faire, making it ready for the presse; and so I sent it up to a friend at London, where it lay almost halfe a yeare before it came into the Presse, till such time as I was carefull to looke af∣ter it my selfe. If my booke had beene made ten yeares agone, what then? I may put it out when I please, it is rashnesse and madnesse to affirme that because my booke came out three yeares after I first studied the point, that therefore I was so long in studying it; by this rule Master Partons 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is a monster as well as my booke▪ for I can prove that three yeares agone, and better, he beganne to preach for his opinion, and a spe∣ciall friend of his told me before my book was in the presse, that he had a booke of this Question ready for the Presse, which

without doubt was this his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. This I thought good to make knowne, lest the reader should be deceived in a passage of his in the Title of the said booke, where he saith it was pre∣pared 1642. for if by preparing he meane inventing or studying, hee wrongs his reader and his owne conscience, seeing hee preached for his opinion three yeares before. Thus much in an∣swer to his proud bragge. This Sophister (for so I cannot chuse but call him; for all his answers are but meer sophistrie) is offended at the title of my booke, because I call bowing at the name Jesus superstition. One reason is, because, saith hee, Jesus is the Genitive case, and cannot be nominall in any case; which exception shall be answered hereafter. And secondly, be∣cause the tearme of superstition is an Enthusiasme (as he calleth it) of Master Prynne and Master Burton, whom in scorne he calls Confessor Prynne and Father Burton, fathered on him and his fel∣lowes by me, whom he calls their Pupill. But it was called su∣perstition by sundry learned, long before they or my selfe wrote in the Question: therefore it doth not appeare to be first brought up by those worthy men, or if it were, I have no reason to re∣cant for saying so too, unlesse he can disprove the truth of it: and whereas he upbraides them with their forfeitures, and ask∣eth me whether I will undergoe the same; I answer, hee is a malicious impudent person to cast the sufferings of those excel∣lent men, with scorne into their teeth, in comparison of whom for true solid learning, piety and sincerity, he is not worthy of that honour that Job refused to give to the fathers of those chil∣dren that mocked him;* 1.2 but himselfe also hath undergone a for∣feiture, which if it had beene in as good a quarrell as theirs, it would have beene more for his comfort, but he speakes out, he can be content to helpe mee to their forfeiture, if it lay in his power, because he saith, that contrary to my knowledge (his owne saying, he should have said) I accuse him of syllabicall wor∣ship, having often (but it was never but once as I remember) in the presence of Divines and Gentlemen affirmed the contrary: In answer to which, I doubt not but this malecontent will doe what he can to the uttermost of his power, to the extremitie of forfei∣ture, his malice is so implacable not only against me, but against all such as hate his courses; but he cannot tell what forefeiture he himselfe may undergoe for his misdemeanours if once a good

peace be setled, and I am confident that they that are through∣ly acquainted with Master Barton, will not accuse me for the crime of incredulitie in not beleeving him on his bare word; but whether I have wrongfully charged him with syllabicall wor∣ship, the following treatise will declare.

SECTION I.

VVHerein I demonstrate,* 1.3 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,* 1.4 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,* 1.5 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,* 1.6 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* 1.7 Calvin and Master* 1.8 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* 1.9 Sutton; yea you quote* 1.10 Origen to call it so, yea * 1.11 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.* 1.12 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,* 1.13 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* 1.14. 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,* 1.15 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?* 1.16 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 *,* 1.17 makes Jesus to be the name of the Deitie, Christ of the humanitie;* 1.18 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,* 1.19 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 〉;* 1.20 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,* 1.21 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.

SECT. II.

VVHereas I doe not so well approve of the opinion of those Expositors that refer the subjected Names to ratio∣nall creatures only, but rather refer them to all things and crea∣tures whatsoever; shewing proofe for my opinion, yet referring my selfe to better information if I can have it; you take advan∣tage at this, and taxe me that I oppose them with all my might by whom I pretend to be guided: but I hope Sir I may shew reason for my opinion, and make it as strong as I can; and I must tell you, my opinion is as it was: you have answered nothing to purpose to any of the Scriptures I alleadged. The maine proofe of my reason, that Christs Kingdome in this Text is not onely of Mediatorship, but naturall, you deny, and understand it one∣ly of the Kingdome of Mediatorship:* 1.22 but your owne Author Zanchy understandeth it of both: yea you your selfe understand it of both:* 1.23 And some Texts by mee alledged here, parallel to that of Phil. 2. you apply to both; why not then this Text? Next▪ because I say that Christ according to his humane nature is advanced to the glory of the naturall kingdome, and that he is exalted to be partaker of the glory of the divine nature in the in∣heriting of all things; you maliciously lay Eutychisme to my charge, as if I meant that the humane nature is absorpt by the

divine nature,* 1.24 uncharitably construing this Phrase [according to the humane nature] contrary to my meaning. As if I meant it as a cause. Christ according to his humane nature is onely this, Christ man, or Christ in the humanitie; and so Ʋ••sin,* 1.25 understandeth the very same phrase, and to the very same purpose, as I doe here: nei∣ther doe I say that Christ man is partaker of the divine Essence, but onely of the glory of it, in the inheriting of all things; neither doe I confound the two kingdomes, as you lay to my charge, but onely distinguish them: therefore you shew your selfe a most ma∣licious person in charging me thus falsely as you doe; which to compasse, you care not how absurdly you contradict your selfe. Next when you are empty in substantiall exceptions, you come upon me for a dash or point; affirming as if I had set downe a Comma for a Colon, but shew me not where; and I professe I can∣not finde where it is in the whole Section, as you lay to my charge. Where-ever it is I did nothing purposely; a dash may miscarry in the writing or in the Presse. Therefore T. B. is lame and not I, in making such lame exceptions. Here yet for all your strouting you stand to answer to those parallel Scriptures, where is shewed the Subjection of every creature to the Kingdome of Christ, for hitherto you have not answered them nor those Authors, which I have brought for it. Your Syllogisme is not right. This you say, that name above which there is no name of God, is the name above every name. But so is the Name of Jesus. In your maior you desert your opinion, for you should have said, that name which is above every name of God, for that is your opinion. In your minor there is an equivocation, for you doe not shew what name you meane by the name of Jesus, seeing you will not have it called the Name Jesus.

SECT. III.

VVHerein I shew, that bowing of the Knee in this Text is not to be taken literally and expressely, for the bowing of that member of the body, which we call the knee. My first reason is because bowing in the Scripture is taken figuratively, therefore may otherwise be understood,* 1.26 Psal. 44. 25. Hab. 3. 6. And so secondly, are knees taken metaphorically. Here Mr. Barton

saith that these two reasons hold nothing: but Sir, I pray you take all my reasons together, and so they prove sufficiently what I intend, as it is said, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing shall be established: one doth it not alone, but two or three united: You see, I except my two first from evidently pro∣ving, they shew onely that this exposition is agreeable to the Scriptures, my maine strength lies in my third Reason, confirmed by the other: where I prove that because An∣gels, Devills, soules of men must bow; besides sensitive, and insensi∣tive creatures; which have no proper knees: therefore proper knees are not commanded. For if such knees were properly commanded, it would be injustice in God to require such knees where they are not: as in a King if hee should command such a summe of mony to be payd by his subjects, which he knowes they are not able to pay. That which you answer to this is to no purpose; For it is absurd to say, because some creatures have knees, they are bound to bow proper knees expressely, and those creatures that have no knees, are bound to bow analogically: for the same bowing is injoyned to all, if the Text did make a difference it were something; but there is no difference in the Text. But you will prove that Angels have knees as well as Tongues, 1 Cor. 13. 1. and faces, Rev. 7. 11. and they are said to stand, to fall downe, which insinuate knees; and this you say is enough to those that will be satisfied with reason; Sir this reason will not satisfie any one that knowes the Scriptures: for because faces, tongues and bodily postures are ascribed to An∣gels, it will not follow that they have them properly, no more then because hands, face, eares, backparts, and postures of descen∣ding and marching on are ascribed to God in Scripture, that God hath these properly.

Now because you except things insensitive from this bowing, I will overthrow you by your owne infallible witnesse Doctor Page,* 1.27 who cites sundry authors to shew that this Text is to be understood of the subjection of all, both friends and enemies, to Christ, alledging for proofe that place of 1 Cor. 15. 25. We must reigne till he hath put all his enemies under his feet; in the next verse it is subjoyned, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death: whereby it is expressely shewed that death also being an enemy must bow and fulfill the Text. I would faine know now what bodily

knees hath Death: Death doth in part bow already; because it is in part subdued: but how will you have Death bow at the mention of the Name Jesus? except you thinke the knee bones of the dead rattle in the graves, when you name Jesus in the Church over them; but you must make their hearts to under∣stand, and the Sculles to heare too, else it is past any under∣standing, to conceive how it can be done. But I must tell you Sir, how ever you will wrangle it out, that your friends and your selfe too understand this Text figuratively. For* 1.28 Doctor Page from Origen, and* 1.29 you your selfe from that Author doe understand it of the knees of the soule as well as of the body; so doth* 1.30 Sutten. Now what proper knees have soules? then what pro∣per knees have Angels? which are purer Spirits then soules: So that understanding it thus, you must needs understand it of the whole strength of the creature, for what proper knees have soules more then other parts of the body? yea, they come nearer to proper knees then the soule; being corporeall as the proper knee is, which soules are not. Therefore you expounding the Text of soul-knees, you cannot in any sense exclude the other parts of the body, besides the proper knee, and therefore whether you will or no, you must yeeld to me here; If you understand the Text of expresse corporeall knees, then are no other knees commanded, then are not Angels and Devills to bow because they have no such knees, and so it will be will-worship in you to give any part besides the knee, and then you sinne, when you put of your hat, and bow your bodie at the name; when in so doing you doe rather stiffen your knees, then bow them. If the proper knee be expressely commanded, that part onely must be given and nothing else in stead of it, then you cannot un∣derstand it of soule-knees; for soule-knees are no proper knees. Therefore you must with me here (yea you doe if you could see) understand by bowing every knee, the subjection of the whole creature to Christ. That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are properly taken for such a bowing, as yeelds an outward expression, is nothing to the purpose, for such words as are taken properly are sometimes used improperly, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which properly signifieth to goe forth or walke on, is improperly applyed to God, Psal. 68. 7. So doth the word used Gen. 18. 21. properly signifie to goe downe, which is yet ascribed to God who properly cannot de∣scend.

So that in that I have said,* 1.31 I doe not deny the knee; but I affirme that it is no more commanded then the soule; or other parts of the body. For the second part of this Section, viz. the confession of the tongue; you doe extreamely triffle with mee; for you speake falsely in saying, that I exclude the tongue of the body properly so called, you see I mention it; but I un∣derstand it not of the said tongue expressely, and particularly, but in a generall sense, all tongues must speake as well as this tongue, soule tongues, and all bodily tongues, the vertures of the whole creature, yea as David saith, all my bones shall say, Lord who is like to thee? Psal. 35. 10. even as the insensitive crea∣tures, that have no tongues, are said to speake the praise of Christ* 1.32. Yea you plainely agree with me here, for you say no more then I, and I as much as you, you say the heart, and tongue, soule and body must be subject; and so confesse. Your acknowledging that irrationall creatures confesse Christ doth evidently over∣throw your Tenet of the not bowing of those creatures; for all that in the Text confesse, doe also blow the knee, seeing then these confesse they must needs bow; so that you and I doe not greatly fall out in this Section if you could see it: but you doe not see it as appeareth by your syllogisme, the minor whereof I deny, and have disproved.

SECT. IV.

HEre I affirme, that to understand this phrase in the Name of Jesus to be at the mention of the Name Jesus cannot be paral∣leld in the exposition of the said phrase by any Scripture. In the name prefixed before any title of God; yea I now say before any name whatsoever, can no where beare this sense; first, you deny that you bow at the bare Name Jesus, but of that before, and you give me barbarous language in that I say you under∣stand it at the mention of the Name Jesus: But if you stood not in need of Hellebore (as you say I doe) you would not be so out∣ragious in outfacing the plaine truth; you say (forsooth) at the mention of Jesus, but not at the name Jesus. Who understan∣deth you now? if you bow at the mention of Jesus, it must be done as well at the mention of any other title of Jesus, by which hee

is denominated. If not at the mention of the name Jesus, why doe you keepe such a stirre about this name? all the world sees that you bow at the mention of this name, and no other; and if you meane it not at the time when this name is mentioned, why doe you it immediately, and not let it alone till some other time? you your selfe say otherwise in this Section 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is all one 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Jesus is named; Yea you yeeld at length, and forsooth you say you will overcome mee with my owne weapons, as when I say, Psal. 118. 10. all nations compassed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them: would it not be a wild sense, say I, to understand it thus, at the naming of the Lord I will destroy them? You here aske me if I were well when I printed this; for say you, can there be any more intended by In the name of the Lord, then the bringing the Lord into the middest be∣tweene him and his enemies? and is there any other way to doe that then by the faithfull mention of his name? Sir, I was better when I prin∣ted this clause then you, when you answered; it but doe you ex∣pound this Text as you doe, Phil. 2. 9, 10? doth In there signifie time, as you expound it in Phil. 2. and match it with Gen. 1. 1? In here indeed notes the cause, but not time. So that the meaning is this, In the name of the Lord, i.e. by the power and assistance of the Lord I will destroy them: but if you will parallel this place with Phil. 2. 10. as you understand it, you must make the sense to bee this. All nations compassed me about; but when the Lord is mentioned, that is, at the instant time thereof, I will destroy them, as at the very time, when Jesus is mentioned you bow; if this be the meaning of the Psalmist, I see no reason but you must have a Sword, or a Pistoll, or such like with you at the Church, and when the Lord is mentioned, you must fall to killing your ene∣mies; and then when the people say good Lord deliver us, if you have any enemies there, they deliver up themselves into your hands, to be killed, and so you will not bee of Davids minde; for he when his adversaries were against him, gave himselfe to prayers, but when your enemies pray you will kill them. My next Scripture is, Act. 9. 29. Saul spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, I say it would be infinitely absurd to say hee spake boldly at the naming of the Lord Jesus; you cry out against mee and say is this absurd? and infinitely too? we all know that Paul was a zealous professor, and might not he be stout at the mention or naming

of Jesus? he is stoutly preached, whom we feare to name. Now you cry out where is this great challenger? were I Anteus I should never rise againe: but stay Sir, I am on my legges yet, to buckle with you once, and againe; What, doth In signifie time here, as you wil have it signifie at Phil. 2. 9? Nomen capitur pro professione:

Name is taken for profession. So the sense is this, Paul valiantly defended the cause of Christ;

but if you will have In signifie the present time there, then the sense will be this; Saul preached or spake boldly when Jesus was named, that is, as soone as ever the Name was named, as accordingly you bow. Then it will fol∣low that whensoever you heare Jesus named you must fall to preaching, and then as soone as you come in the Common Booke of Prayer to the absolution, Jesus being named you must fall to preaching, and then you must curtaile almost all the Divine Ser∣vice, and run into that which you judge a great fault in others, goe to your Sermon before you have said the Lords Prayer, or Ca∣nonicall prayer; & though you should make but a short Sermon & returne to your absolution, at the conclusion of it Jesus is named againe, and once more you must goe to preaching before you come to the Lords Prayer; and if you preach every time Jesus is named in the divine service, you will preach oftner in a day then any of those you call Puritans, in a quarter of a yeare at least; and if often preaching bee as you deeme, a note of a Puritane, you will be the rankest Puritane in the world; yea in the absolution Jesus and Lord being both mentioned together, you must preach and kill, all at one time, and this I thinke will bee the maddest Sermon that ever was made. In the next place as if my owne weapons were not enough to strike me dead, you will strike mee with your owne, and what are they? First, you bring the third Commandement, but this phrase in the name is not there. Next you come to Joh. 16. 23. whatsoever you shall aske the Father in my name; that is, say you by faith mentioning me as mediatour. And then you argue, Act. 5. 40. not to speake in the name of Jesus, ei∣ther by preaching, say you, or otherwise to his glory, at our invocation over the name of Iesus is a fruitfull naming, or mentioning of him; not inward∣ly alwayes, but by heart and tongue also alwayes unto God, Ephes. 5. 20. To what purpose is this brought? what frivolous stuffe is here? And yet you having had me downe before in your conceit, now you gall me terribly. But we will examine these places: as for

Act. 5. 40. it is answered before in Act. 9. 29. being a parallel place, but I adde this further to it, Were the Apostles forbidden to mention the name Jesus? did not their enemies mention Jesus as well as they?

But you adde [to his glory]. But you will have your people bow when you mention Iesus in the Church, but you will not have them question whether you doe it to his glory or no; As for Iob. 16. 23. we are bidden there to pray to the Father in the name of Christ, that is, in and by Christ himselfe, as other places demon∣strate: but I pray Sir, doth In here signifie time? If you under∣stand this place as you doe Phil. 2. the sense will be this, what∣soever you aske of my Father, when Jesus is named; then it will follow that whensoever you heare Iesus named, you must fall to Prayer. And as before this sense of Act. 9. 29. will drive you to preaching in the time of prayer: So here it will drive you to prayer in the time of preaching, if at any time you name Jesus in it;* 1.33 and what a confusion will this be also?

But to returne againe to these two places, Act. 9. and Ioh. 16. If Master Barton bring Phil. 2. 9. to the meaning of these two pla∣ces as he understands them, he cannot but know that preaching and praying is begun, and continued before and after Jesus is named, and not then begun onely at the instant time of na∣ming of it, for Jesus is named but now and then; then accor∣ding to this you must continue all along your Gesture of bow∣ing, throughout preaching and praying, though the name Je∣sus be seldome mentioned; and then you must neither kneele nor stand, but have your body bowed all the time halfe way to the ground, and then there shall not be any visible appearance of bowing at the name Jesus more then ordinary, then at any other name whatsoever, which may bee named in preaching or prayer: and if any should see you in this posture, continuing halfe bowed to the ground, they would thinke you to be dispo∣sed to another kinde of businesse then preaching or prayer. I ap∣peale here to all the world whether you have not here given your selfe such a shamefull foyle as you will never be able to reco∣ver. My exposition of Psal. 63. 4. you mislike not; but yet it cannot beare your sense of Phil. 2. 9. for though the Saints have used to lift up the hands in prayer, yet I thinke they are not precisely bound to it; and if they were, it is senselesse to gather

from this or any other place, that they are bound to a new act of lifting up the hands every time the name of God sounds, which sense you must put upon it, if you match it with Phil. 2. 9. you have not proved yet that In the name signifieth any where at the time of mentioning the name, neither can you; here then one maine pillar of your cause is shaken downe.

SECT. V.

TO my gathering up my sense together you wrong me, for saying that I doe not keepe the Analogie of the advancing Christs glory above all glories; for I name dignities, which is all one. And Doctor Page saith that the name Jesus was made a name beneath all names, and how doe I then offend in saying that Christ received a name beneath all names in his humiliati∣on;* 1.34 though we differ in the sense of the word name? And Sir let the wind be in what quarter it will, I trust I shall alwayes stand for outward worship: but not for this your superstitious wor∣ship: And I must tell you Sir, that better schollers then your selfe, that are farther from Arianisme, then you from Antichristia∣nisme, doe understand Name here for power and glory, as ge∣nerally all our moderne Divines* 1.35 And when I say, Christ shall be manifested to be Lord, &c. I doe not meane, given is mani∣fested, but that he shall fully manifest himselfe to the Lord by his glorious power,* 1.36 especially at the day of judgement, when also all tongues shall acknowledge him so to be. For your ex∣position of the Text, as I lay to your charge, it must be so, for the Text limits no time to us more then to any other creature, if we are bound to bow at the Name Jesus: but at preaching, and prayer, at publike and private devotion, especially on the Lords day; then the Devils and damned are no more bound: then you must have preaching and prayer in hell; and Devils and damned to observe the Lords day, and to have publike and private devoti∣on: and what I have said against this crotchet of yours in Sect. 10, 11. neither Dr. Page here, nor your selfe there have taken off, for you say nothing to the purpose.

But you will have the exposition of the Text to be this: the Lord Jesus by the union, and for our salvation was humbled: where∣fore

God exalted him, and set up the name Jesus above every name; that for the union, and our salvation, every rationall creature should bow at the nameof Jesus; which you will have to be at the mention of Jesus.

Now whereas you esteeme my interpretation to be short, hard, doubtful; I appeale to all the world whether I have added or detra∣cted any thing, or have not made good every clause from the Scrip∣tures. And that your interpretation is not according to the Scrip∣tures I have proved; and besides you adde to the Text: for these words (for the union, and for our salvation) are not in the Text.

In my notation of the absurdities of your opinion, I say a∣gaine, to understand Name for glory, the name is knowne what is given Christ: but to understand name for a proper name; it is not shewed what name it is in this clause, (God gave him a name above every name) and whereas you bid me looke for it in the 10. verse, I referre my selfe to this clause, and in verse 10. you contradict your selfe; for you still fall out with me for calling it the Name Jesus: You doe not then shew what Name it is; the rest of your answer is but rayling and very babling and is suffici∣ently answered already.

In my second note I say againe that in your exposition you doe not denote the person properly, to whom the bowing shall be done, but onely set downe a time when the bowing shall bee done, neither have you answered it; for the Name Jesus, as you meane it, is distinct from the person. But you say, how shall wee know when to bow if it be not signified by some signe? I reply, by what signe shall wee know how to honour the Father? you will not obey without signes. Those famous Churches that abomi∣nate your bowing, know how and when to honour Christ bet∣ter then your selfe.

Thirdly, I say againe that in this your exposition you apply no honour at all to the name, if you make In to signifie time, but onely make it a watchword when to bow, you set not downe to whom. And if you understand In for To, as Bishop Andrewes doth understand it also, then you give the name the whole bowing of the regard, and honour also, call it what you will, and none at all to the person: but referring it to both you adde to the Text, and either way you make it Idolatry; in the first sense it is evident∣ly plaine, and in the second Bishop Babington parallels it with

Idolatry,* 1.37 you know it well enough though you will take no no∣tice of it. And you are an impudent person to say that Bishop Babington in that place saith nothing against your sense; for he neither understandeth Name to be Jesus, but power, and glory, nei∣ther doth he understand bowing literally, but for subjection, and he calls your worship syllable worship, and saith such worshippers are given up to delusions: As for Dr. Whitakers, he is as full as any against your sense, though hee might hold it indifferent, so bowing be at other names also; but sole bowing at the name Jesus he holds unlawfull, and utterly damnes your exposition; not onely in that place which I have quoted, but in his answer to William Regnolds* 1.38; your Argument in the end is but a meere begging of the Question without proofe, and so I leave it. As for Sir Edward Deering, he is no expositour of Scripture: I can∣not judge of him, because I have not seene him.

SECT. VI.

HEre I shew that the said exposition of this Text is not con∣firmed by any correspondent Scripture speaking of the same thing, and there be some words and phrases so expoun∣ded here, as the like words, and phrases will not beare that sense in any Scripture, as I have fully proved in the premises (this I say, and this is my meaning though you bee willing to wrest me) therefore this is a false exposition. The consequence I prove from Rom. 12. 6. and 2 Pet. 1. 20. you say the meaning of these Scriptures is that all interpretations must be made according to the Axiomes of the Christian faith. But granting this it makes against you; for the Axiomes of our faith must be proved by the Scriptures. Your answer to my testimonies of Augustine and Zanchy is nothing at all, but this; is Augustine; is Zanchy for you? which is frivolous. To your curse in the conclusion, I op∣pose that of the Psalmist,* 1.39 Psal. 109. He loved cursing, therefore it shall happen to him.

SECT. VII.

FOr the Argument is this Section, there is nothing to any purpose sayd to it, but impertinent trifling more then hath beene answered before, and shall be answered afterward. There∣fore for brevities sake I pretermit it. Onely this I tell you Sir, that though all men in some degree of Subjection doe now ful∣fill the Text, will they, nill they, Christ being Lord of all, yet all cannot bow, yea are not bound to bow at the Name Jesus, as Infants and deafe men, and those Nations that never heard of Jesus, and in whose hearts the sense of the name is not writ∣ten. And though Chrysostome doe understand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of all nati∣ons, it makes against you, for the name Jesus doth not con∣cerne all in all nations; yet other Interpreters doe under∣stand 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of all things.

SECT. VIII.

IN this Section I must be large, for upon this the whole Questi∣on dependeth; and we shall see whether or no it runs out of it veines, as you charge me, or, you in your answer have not runne out of your selfe and from the truth. To let passe impertinent things, and railings, and your false charging of me, that I de∣part from the sense of the Oeconomicall kingdome; I come pre∣sently to the Argument,* 1.40 which is briefely this. Bowing at the mention of the name Iesus is not the bowing to be performed at the day of judgement, therefore it is not now commanded in the Text: The con∣sequent you grant, but you deny the antecedent and affirme that this bowing shall be at the day of judgement.

your charging me with a contradiction is but meere sophistry: the true bowing shall be there in degree, and at the day of judge∣ment perfectly, but not your bowing; but what is your rea∣son for it? none of any antiquity wrote against it. A pretty reason; how could they write against it when they never heard of it? by this reason any Heretique may bring up a new heresie and plead for himselfe, none before spake against it. But how doe you answer my Reasons against it? First I say there is no Scripture for it, and it is impossible if it were so, that

so many cleare Scriptures speaking so fully of the day of judgement should say nothing of this; but you say you have more cleere Scriptures for it, than I have against it, else you will give up the cause.

Sir, you have need indeed to be well advised what you deli∣ver, for you make it so necessary a point of faith, that whosoever will not beleeve it, shall misse eternall life, & that whosoever will not now practise it shall be damned for ever. For points of Faith and necessary worship I must have certaine rules from Scripture,* 1.41 Psal. 8. 20. Micah 6. 8. Faith in an evidence, Heb. 1. 11. I must be so sure of it, that if an Angell from heaven should teach other∣wise to hold him accursed; you must then bring such sure Scrip∣tures that there must be cast no just cause of doubt, else you will bring sinne upon all that practise it, Rom. 14. 23. you must so confirme it by Scriptures, as to leave all without excuse, that will not beleeve it, and practise it, if you can doe this you carry all, if not, you overthrow all; for this Section is the hinge of the Question. Now we will peruse your Scriptures: First, you urge that of Phil. 2. 9. on which lyeth the question, most ridiculous; The next place is 2 Thess. 1. 10. 12. but for the tenth Verse no name is mentioned at all. And for the twelfth verse, the words are these, That the name of our Lord Iesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in him. I answer, that very good authors, as Calvin and Marlorate do understand it of Christ being glorified by us in an holy life. Thus saith Calvin, Revocat nos, &c.

Hee calls us backe to the chiefe end of our life, that we should serve the Lord of glory; it is chiefely to be noted that they shall againe bee glorified in Christ, who have set forth the glory of Christ.

This agrees with the precedent verse as Marlorate on that place well observes. And to this doth Zanchy agree, and though hee doe also allow the other, and apply it to the day of judgement; yet doth he not understand it of any literall name, but of the person of Christ, for thus he saith. The summe of these words is this, that

Christ shall be glorified in us as the head in the members, when he endueth us with that glory wherewith himselfe is glorified.

I have proved Section 1. First, that this phrase, Name of Iesus, or Name of God, or Lord, doth usually denote the power and glory of God; or Jesus either implicitely or expresly: And it doth never any where de∣note any bare title. Now here is your Argument, the Lord Iesus

shall be glorified in the Saints at the day of judgement. Ergo, all ratio∣nall creatures shall bow corporall knees at the name Iesus at that day: a very senselesse inconsequent: I am very confident that you can∣not bring any orthodox interpreter to understand that Text of the literall Name Jesus. If it could bee proved, Jesus is no more mentioned there, then Lord and Christ; and there is no mention of bowing at any name. Those Texts of Isay 45. 23. and Rom. 14. 11. though they be to be understood of the judge∣ment, make nothing for the purpose. Thus we see how trimly Master Barton hath answered my first reason.

My second reason is this; To what end shall the Name Jesus be named at that day, that all should bow at the mention of it, when Christ shall appeare in his most glorious name of power and glory; when he shall not come as a Jesus to the most that shall then bow; but a Lord to all, and so shall all call him? Here you are very snuffe; as it is usuall with you when your an∣swers are most weake, there to bee most outragious: you tell me it is a demand, rather then a disproofe: but disproofes by questions as ordinarily most vehement; but you here fearefully wrest my words; for I have not said that the name Jesus shall not be mentioned at all at that day, but that it shall not be men∣tioned that all shall bow at it, but if I should have denyed that the name Jesus shall be then mentioned, it is more then you can prove by any cleare Scriptures; Because then you referre mee to your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. wee will examine the Scriptures you there men∣tion.

First, you bring 2 Thess. 1. 7. where it is said that in that day the Lord Iesus shall be revealed: but this is spoken of the person, not of the literall Name: it is no more but this; Christ himselfe shall appeare in judgement; and here the emphasis is in the word Lord, being the title of his honour, rather then in Jesus. Your second instance is 2 Thess. 1. 12. but that is answered already. The third place is 2 Cor. 1. 14. where the day of judgement is called the day of the Lord Iesus, this is all one with the first instance; up∣on this you descant, shall he have a day, and shall he not be menti∣oned? But it will not follow that because the said day is called the day of the Lord Jesus, that therefore the Name Iesus shall be mentioned, because there is nothing spoken of the bare lite∣rall name, but person. Your next place is Phil. 2. 10. Every

tongue shall confesse Jesus Christ to be Lord: you then fall very fu∣riously on them that shall question the Name Jesus to bee then mentioned, in this manner? If they be Schollers, can they be thus igno∣rant? if Divines, be they not infatuated? if both, are they not in con∣tempt? But soft Sir, better Schollers, better Divines, and wor∣thier men than your selfe cannot necessarily make your conclu∣sion from this place.

The Apostle speaking here in the third person shewes what shall be at the day of judgement, and therefore might well speake of Christ in his proper name, yet it will not follow thence that the name Jesus shall be then mentioned, when they that shall then appeare shall not speake in the third person; but shall speak to Christ in the second person before his face. But I pray Sir tell me, if the Name Jesus be to be then sounded out, who shall sound it out? you did once tell me, that the Trumpe should doe it, but that is ridiculous. Shall Christ himselfe sound it out? there is no proofe of that. Shall those that shall appeare before him sound it out? there is no proofe of that; there bee sundry Scriptures that they shall call him Lord, but not one that they shall call him Jesus at that day: So then the Apostle might well say speaking of Christ in the third person, before the day of judg∣ment, that every tongue shall confesse Jesus to be Lord at that day, for in calling him Lord they call Jesus Lord, though they doe not Name the word Jesus; As when any Sir to your face shall call you Priest, it may be justly said, when you are spo∣ken of in the third person, that they called Thomas Barton Priest, though they named not Thomas when they so cal∣led you. So then hee that doubts this say you, doubts all, this may justly bee doubted, and so all may bee doubted. But if you could prove this to bee true, as for my part I will not peremptorily deny it, though there is no cleare Scripture for it, yet what can you get by this proofe? will it therefore follow, that all shall bow at the mention of the Name Jesus? This is your Argument or it is nothing at all, but it is a mad inconsequence. This consequence, if good, will make certainly for bowing at the Name Lord, which shall then be mentioned by confession. Christ indeed shall bee bowed to by all as Lord, but not at the Name Lord, Christ shall be confest to be Lord, therefore to him as Lord shall the bowing bee perfor∣med,

if the Text had said, that every tongue shall confesse the Lord Christ to be Jesus, then had Jesus beene the Name to bee confest, but seeing that they shall confesse Jesus Christ to bee Lord, it is plaine, that Lord is the Name, as being said, that all the Subjects in England doe confesse Charles to be King, they doe not properly now confesse the King to be Charles, but Charles to be King. And whereas you returne me to your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Tract. 7. I appeale to the judicious, whether there bee any thing to the purpose, or whether that I have here set downe doe not overthrow all there spoken. But whereas you say that the con∣fession of Jesus is the utmost end in regard of our selves,* 1.42 because there is no other name wherein we shall be saved: This is nothing to the Text: For Angels, Devils and Reprobates, that must bow as well as wee, cannot have this end, for it is not a Name to them for salvation. Againe you wrest the said Text pitifully for your owne ends, for what orthodox expositour can you produce to make Name there the literall Name Jesus? that it is meant of the person of our Saviour, the precedent words are plaine.* 1.43

Ex∣plicatio est proximae sententiae, &c. It is the explication of the next sentence, in Christ alone is salvation, for by name he un∣derstands the cause or meane.

* 1.44 Againe you translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 cun∣ningly, and purposely to hide your craft. Wherein is as much as whereby, and so our last translation reads it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath the force of a Causall, and if you meane so too, then understanding Name for the literall Name Jesus, it cannot be avoided but you must make the Name Jesus our Saviour, which is flat Idolatry.

Next you fall foule upon my Argument, and tell me that it is very false to say, that Christ shall come as a Lord to all, and not as Jesus, and that the simple people are abused by my mis∣applying the Text, Matth. 25. 37. 44. But that I have neither abused the Text, nor the people, I have made good sufficient∣ly; but that you have done both it is evident to your shame. But you have not set downe my words right, for I say thus, He shall not come as a Jesus to all that shall bow. But by two reasons you will prove that I have misapplyed the Text. The first is by a Question: Who is Lord, say you, but Jesus? Here you ab∣surdly confound these two Names, making them all one. I de∣ny not that Jesus the person is Lord, but I deny that the Name Jesus is the Name Lord. Your second reason is, because Jesus

being the Saviour of us, is the confounding Jesus of his, and our enemies: this is your Argument; to whom he is not a saving Je∣sus, he is a confounding Jesus, so one way hee is a Jesus to all. But Sir the name Jesus is a saving, not a confounding Name, and it was given not for Angels, Devils and Reprobates, but for his people onely, and that for salvation, not for destructi∣on, all this is plaine from Matth. 1. 21. Seeing then you affirme that the bowing in the Text must bee done in the sense of this Name, the Angels cannot bow in the sense of this Name, ex∣cept you will make them sinners; for Jesus is a Saviour from sinne: much lesse can Devils and Reprobates bow to him in that sense, except you will have them to be saved. Againe it is ut∣terly against the Scripture to hold, that Jesus as Jesus is a con∣founder, for all the while that he was most commonly called by this Name and was in the state of saving us,* 1.45 Hee was meeke, mild;* 1.46 went about doing good, would not breake the bruised Reed, nor quench the smoaking Flax. When his Disciples requested of him to command fire from heaven to destroy those that would not receive him, he rebukes them saying, The Sonne of man is not come to destroy mens lives, but to save them; marke the reason, he would not destroy,* 1.47 because he came to save. So againe, If any heare my words, and beleeve not, I judge him not; consider the reason, for saith he, I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. You see then, he cannot judge or destroy as Jesus; salvation and de∣struction are contrary.

If any object, that this was in the time of his humiliation, but he shall come otherwise to judgement; I answer, the sense of the Name can never be altered, God cannot deny his word; If at any time salvation be opposed to destruction or judgement it is ever so. The name Jesus therefore being an humble, & lowly name (as you confesse) and a saving name, cannot be the Name in which he shall come as universall Judge; but that must be a Name of power and authority over all as I have proved.

But might I grant, as I will not, that Jesus is a confounding Name to some, yet it cannot be a confounding Name to those nations that never knew him, for these never offended him in this name; His Spirit of illumination, they never resisted, His Gospel they never rejected, His precious blood they never trode under their feete. Christ is an upright Judge, and shall

come to recompence every one according to his workes:* 1.48 Now there∣fore it would bee injustice in Christ, (which were blasphemy once to thinke) if he should destroy them as Jesus, against whom as Jesus they never offended. This is contrary to Rom. 2. 12. They that sinne without Law, shall perish without Law, Christ shall judge them indeed as Jehovah, for the breach of the Law of nature, which he hath written in their hearts, but not as Jesus, for so they never offended him.* 1.49 I will bring your owne witnesse Zan∣chy against you, Causa Ʋnica;

The onely cause why the creature boweth knees to God is not because he is Judge, or Mediatour, but onely because he is Jehovah, which he pro∣veth from, Deut. 6. 13. Isa. 45. 23. Rom. 14. 11.

Now let us briefely summe up all: you have not proved by any cleare Scrip∣tures, that Jesus shall be named at the day of judgement; if you could, it would not follow thence, that bowing shall bee at the mention of that name. You cannot prove that In the name doth any where signifie at the mention of the Name. Sundry Scriptures you have wickedly falsified for it, as I have proved Sect. 4. If you could prove it from some Scriptures, yet seeing this phrase is often used, and hath other meaning in other Scriptures, yet there will be a just doubt, whether it be so meant in this place or no. Then those that shall stand to bee judged at that day, whom you damne to hell for not performing it now, shall have just cause to plead against Christ in this manner; Lord in all thy other Commandements thou deliveredst thy will plaine∣ly unto me, but here in this Text thou hast delivered it in such words as are not agreeable in sense to any part of thy word else∣where; or so as I could not understand thy meaning, whether it were according to thy will, or no; so that because I might justly doubt it, I could not practise it without sinning against thee; and how derogatory will this be to Christs honour that the judged shall have just cause of exception against the Judge? Again, it is against the Scripture to hold that he shall confound any in the sense of the name Iesus. It signifyeth a Saviour, and so Angels, Devils, and Reprobates cannot bow to him; It is against the Scriptures to hold that hee shall confound any as Iesus, against whom as Iesus they never sinned.

Therefore Master Barton you have shewed your selfe a Master Schismatique in delivering an opinion that was never knowne

in the Christian world, till you uttered it, making it a necessa∣ry point of faith, threatning the neglect of the practise of it with eternall damnation, which you cannot prove by the Scrip∣tures, but is contrary to the Scriptures. Therefore you make your selfe a very Antichrist in creating new points of faith, and making Lawes to binde the conscience;* 1.50 and therefore without repentance,* 1.51 your selfe are liable to damnation. It fol∣lowes then expressely that all the gay learned stuffe in your Arn. as touching the Question is overthrowne, and falls downe upon your head; your wound is incurable, it cannot be healed, and if any shall follow your doctrine and practise, of necessity wee shall have a new sect of Bartonists.

But you hold another Crotchet as ridiculous as this,* 1.52 viz. that the name Iesus shall to all eternitie be bowed to after the day of judgement. This you would faine prove from, Rev. 22. 4. where it is said, that the Saints shall see Christs face, and his name written on their foreheads, and then you say, wee shall see it alwayes, heare it alwayes; but I pray what shew of Text can you bring that it shall be alwayes heard? it seemes now you make it indiffe∣rent to bow to the name scene as wel as heard, but you are besides the Text. The best expositors hold that it doth not concerne hea∣ven. Thus saith Master Brightman on that place,

they shall en∣joy a clearer vision than before,* 1.53 yet farre from that which they shall enjoy in heaven;

and he applyeth the prophesie of Zachary to these times.

But grant that it should bee referred to heaven, yet first, It cannot concerne the state of glory after the day of judgement, but before; for Christs comming is mentioned after in the 12. Verse of this Chapter. Secondly, it is absurd to take it literally: If it should be so, it denotes the name Iesus no more than any other name, and there is nothing consequent that any bowing shall be to it: but it is not so. Thus saith Master Brightman on that parallel place, Rev. 1. 14. You may observe that this is no sen∣sible signing. Bowing is subjection, and Iesus is the name of our Mediator: this Doctrine will make Christ Mediator for ever, contrary to 1 Cor. 15. 24. for if we must bow to him in heaven by the name of his Mediatorship, we must bow also by the ver∣tue of his Mediatorship: and so the Saints shall never be in per∣fect blisse, nor the enemies perfectly destroyed. And I pray how

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

shall the devils and damned bow after the day of judgement at this name, (for if the Saints must, they must also) except you will grant that the name Iesus shall be also written upon their foreheads? None ever in this point exceeded so farre in blasphe∣my and absurditie as you have done.

You gave a childish answer to my third Reason, for if it bee no more than corporall bowing at a Name, a childe can per∣forme the like to his father; and so Christ should have a weake kingdome. As for Bishop Andrewes, I am not the first that have so taken him, as I have set downe, and he is plainely so to bee taken, (otherwise there will be no sense in the words) and so be∣ing taken, the consequences that I have noted will directly fol∣low.

Though names be metaphoricall Images, yet they represent the Person to our understanding as well as true Images, and I suppose that if a Iew should see you bow to the Name Jehovah written upon a wall (for writing you make all one with mentioning, as before, and there is no cause why you should doe otherwise by your interpretation) that he would fling a stone in your face; and I perswade me, that if a subject should bow to the Kings Name or picture before his face, hee would defie him; and though we are bound to confesse Christ according to his word, yet are we no where commanded to adore a bare Name; which to doe before Christs face, I say againe, is worse then Idola∣trie.

For the two Arguments in the conclusion; for the first of them, the minor which you except against, hath beene proved, and till that you explaine how the Marginall note failes in your accusation you are answered.

For the second Argument; The denied Major hath beene sufficiently proved, and so doth Calvin testifie for me, where he saith expressely that all things are now in subjection,* 1.54 though the Subjection shall not be perfect till the day of judgement.

SECT. IX.

I Say here that this exposition makes disparitie of worship be∣tweene the persons of the Trinitie, contrary to John 5. 23. there∣fore

it is false: you say it doth not make disparitie: the maine evasion you have here is your conceit, that the Name Iesus is in it selfe the essentiall name of God; but made proper to the Sonne by dispensation. But if you could prove that God in his essence was ever called Jesus (which you cannot prove) there might be some shew for you; but yet this is nothing, for whether it be proper to the Sonne in it selfe, or by dispensation, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, per∣taines not to the question, but whether it be proper or no; that it is proper, you cannot deny. Then it will follow that to per∣forme a dutie to a name properly denoting the Sonne, and not doing the like to the Fathers proper name, is honouring the Sonne a∣bove the Father: It is a monstrous errour to say that Iesus is the essentiall name of God. Hence it will follow, that God had his essence because of mans sinne; and that if man had not sinned God had not beene: a most Blasphemous, and yet inevitable conse∣quence. Therefore Sir, prove this, or all that you say in this Section is but babling: for by this conceit you answer all.

I have not slandered you in saying that by the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you understood a truenesse of worship, and not every way an equall correspondencie: you have affirmed it sundry times, and once at a table, when our maine dispute was about the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In my reply I have not changed the principle, but you have runne your selfe into a contradiction; for whereas you hold it indiffe∣rent to bow at any name of the Trinity if wee please; then you presently say that our not bowing at the name of the Father, nor at the name of the Sonne, nor at the Name of the Holy Ghost, but at the name of Iesus, shewes that they being three one to another, but one in themselves, and that our salvation was wrought equally by them three, onely terminated in the Son; for by giving toleration above specified you overthrow this de∣monstrative end which you set downe, and this reason is but a Phantasie of your braine without proofe.

Whereas in my reply to the second answer, I affirme that you cannot personally bow to all the persons at the name Iesus: be∣cause the distinct names of any one person doe not personally denominate the other persons; and therefore if you say, that you bow personally to every person at the Name Iesus, you confound the persons. You tell me that a father is a father one∣ly in respect of his sonne, and so is a sonne in respect of the fa∣ther:

but yet though a father hath reference to the sonne, and a sonne to the father, yet is not one the other, and what is done to the one, is not done personally to the other; as if you bow to the King you doe not by the same act bow to the Prince. And when I say, I beleeve in God the Father, I professe my faith in the Sonne essentially, and so I doe in the Father, when I say I beleeve in God the Sonne. In that you say that I am a Triformian, for affirming that every person is in one Divine essence,* 1.55 is but one of Thomas Bartons bald Crot∣chets, for hereby I acknowledge but one divine essence to all the Persons. Divines doe ordinarily say so. As Ʋrsinus, In una dei Essentia;* 1.56 in one essence of God three persons doe subsist. Zanchy al∣so shall witnes against you, Tres personae una & eadem constant essen∣tia* 1.57. And I must tell you Sir, in that you say that every person is honoured alike personally, at the name Jesus you overthrow the Text of Phil. 2. 9. for as the Name there above every Name (as it is evident) is proper onely to the second person, because he is one∣ly Mediatour and solely incarnate, so the bowing in the Text is due to him alone distinctly, and personally; for by the same reason if we must bow to the Son together with the Father, and the Ho∣ly Ghost personally by this Text, it will follow that they were incarnate, and mediators, and shall come to judgement as well as the second person. To conclude, this answer doth fully over∣throw that place of Joh. 5. 23. for out of question our Saviour in∣tends there a distinction of persons, and so a distinction of the Sonnes honour, else he should have spoken obscurely and to no purpose: for if there be not a distinction of worship there required, but that the Person of the Father must be necessarily honoured in the person of the Sonne without distinction; then there can be no compari∣son made betweene the honour of the one and the other, and so our Saviour should confound his owne rule; for it could not be knowne whether the Sonne be honoured as the Father is ho∣noured, or no.

For my two Arguments in the end, which you call Syllo∣gismes (though I note neither major, minor, nor conclusion, neither is any bound to reason alwayes from direct Syllogis∣mes) the one is drawne from the Premises, in which you say there are 4. Termini (whereby you wrong me, but indeed your Syllogismes are nothing else, but equivocatious and sophistry) in∣deed

I make two opposite inferences in the same for brevities sake, which none but Cavaliers will blame. The last argument is taken from the essence, which to please you shall be this Syllogisme.

Every honour of the Sonne equall to the honour of the Fa∣ther, is so to honour the Sonne in the Father as the Father is honoured in the Sonne.

But to honour the Father by bowing at the name of the Son, and not to honour the Son by bowing at the name of the Fa∣ther, is not so to honour the Son in the Father, as the Father is honoured in the Sonne. Ergo, This honour is not an equall ho∣nour.

SECT. X.

NO marvell if you be not pleased with my Argument, seeing you are not pleased with your owne Syllogisme which you put in stead of mine. My argument would have served a reasonable man, seeing you desire full Syllogismes, I will not be beholding to you, but will reduce the arguments into two Syllogismes, seeing it cannot be so well contained in one.

No unjust or cruell command is Gods command. But to command all creatures to bow at the name Jesus is a cruell and unjust command. Ergo, this command is not Gods.

The minor is thus proved.

Every command that enjoynes that to be done by any that have no crea∣ted power to performe it, is a cruell and unjust command. But to com∣mand bowing at the Name Jesus injoyneth that to be done by many of the creatures, that have no created power to performe it. Ergo this is a cruell command, and so not Gods.

No reasonable man that compares your Answer to the Argu∣ment cannot but say but that your Answer is extreamely frivo∣lous. First, you make an objection which I told you I meant to prevent, God indeed may require where hee gives no speciall grace, but not if he had given no created power.

Many things here babled have beene answered before, which I now pretermit for brevities sake.

To my question, how divels, and damned soules shall bow at the name Jesus, you shuffle in your answer most pitifully, first

you say, Devills shall bow, as they confesse: Though they cal∣led him Iesus, yet you prove not that they then made a court∣sie. I acknowledge the Devills shall tremble; yet that trembling is not that kind of bowing you understand here; for you make it an act of Religion, or at least a religious ceremony. But you say they shall tremble most of all at the Name Jesus, wherein they are conquered: but what meane you by wherein here? if you meane whereby as a cause, as you must so meane, else it is nonsense, then you make the literall name to conquer them, which is Blasphe∣my, and Idolatry. No marvaile if such as you be, put all Religi∣on in bowing at the name Jesus, seeing you thinke to conquer the Devils by it. Sir, you call this name an hony name, an hum∣ble name, a poore name, Pag. 2. Sect. 2. how shall they tremble rather at this sweet name, this humble name, then at the power∣full and terrible Name Jehovah? It cannot sinke into the braines of them that have but common reason to conceive it. And sure∣ly the Devils be fooles as long as they have liberty to walke too, and fro, if ever they come to Church; for in thinking to con∣found others they confound themselves; for if once they heare Jesus named they must fall flat upon their faces for feare, as you say, which confusion they might avoyd if they come not at devotions; for if they doe, then woe be to them. And then they might alwayes avoyd trembling; for themselves need not name Jesus except they will at any time. How should they bee forced to name it? If their naming Jesus be their torment, they are mad, if they torment themselves when they may choose For my instance in damned soules, how they should bow at the Name Jesus in Hell, seeing there is no divine service in Hell; and these men hold that it is not necessary for any of us, but at such a time; we may say they, if we will, bow at other times, but then we must, because the Church commands it; and seeing there is nothing in hell but blasphemy, and these hold that when men sweare by Jesus, which is nothing so bad as the Damned blaspheming; it is no season to bow, you here cannot tell how to answer, but are intangled in the briars; and therefore cry out of blasphemy: but Sir, it is plaine blasphemy in you, as will be proved: but at length you say that bowing and blasphe∣ming will consist. They shall blaspheme, say you, because they cannot choose but bow; what preposterous foppery is here? On

earth you bow, because you mention Jesus; in hell they shall blaspheme, because they shall bow: so it seemes that bowing shall cause the blasphemy; but I wot, Sir, that they shall blas∣pheme by the name; they must first then blaspheme, how else shall they bow? Their bowing you make to bee their horrour, and trembling, in lying flat on their faces, and crouching downe under the name Jesus, as you doe the Devils: if this bee so, then surely they may escape torment if they will. If the name Jesus torment them, it must bee by mentioning, for so you understand the Text: but what need they mention it? If they doe not mention it alwayes, which were absurditie to grant, then are they not tormented alwayes; and if they be not compel∣led to mention it alwayes, they bee never compelled to doe it; if they be not compelled to it, what neede they doe it? and if they neede not doe it, what need they be tormented; seeing they bee tormented at the Name, as these men say? Yea if they should mention the name never so oft by blasphemy, in hell, how should they fulfill the Text, seeing these men hold it not necessa∣ry for us to fulfill the Text, but at publique devotion on the Lords dayes, though we may, say they, at other devotions? See∣ing then the damned are not bound to Lords dayes, and have no publike devotions, how shall they fulfill the Text, and then how shall they be damned, seeing their fulfilling the Text is by their damnation? Happy damned, if this Doctrine were true: The Pope was wont to deliver the soules out of purgatory for mony, but these will deliver the damned out of hell for no∣thing.

SECT. XI.

VVHerein I shew that this exposition will bring the service of God into bondage, in making us to performe it at every mans will, therefore it is a false exposition; the consequent I prove from Gal. 5. 1. but you will have that place understood of the Doctrine of Justification by the Law; which though it be one thing, yet to observe ceremonies for conscience sake is another, as appeareth from Gal. 4. 10. You observe dayes, and monthes, and times, and yeares; and this is your case that are an observer of times, making the

time of naming Jesus especially holy for adoration. The Text is against all bondage in worship: if we be free from the bondage of the ceremoniall commanded worship, much lesse should we come into bondage by any new traditions. Your answer is as much to the purpose as snow for harvest.

It is not worth a reply, it comes not neere the matter; you have answered nothing to the instance; that every command in Scrip∣ture limited to a time binds ordinarily to that time; you can∣not produce any exception; and then if this be a command to bow at the Name of Jesus, it must be a command to binde when∣soever it sounds: and it is not in the Power of all the world to alter, diminish, or limit any of Gods unlimited commands; therefore I say that your rule of affirmative precepts cannot hold in this place. And this here is not answered, Sect. 5. as you say. Doctor Page his instance of Prayer, 1 Thes. 5. is taken indefi∣nitely, Pray continually, i. e. every day, or at every occasion: but as you understand this Text, the determinate time present is set downe when to bow, but you say it is to bee done at times of confessing, which is in time of Divine Service. But I hope Sir, that Devils and damned in hell doe not observe times of con∣fession, nor divine service, which bow as well as we. But Sir, as you expound the Text, confession doth not regulate the time of bowing, for the name Jesus doth that, and also the time of con∣fession, for bowing and confession are connected by a conjun∣ction copulative, and the season of bowing and confession both are set downe to be at the mentioning of the Name Jesus, so that it will follow if this interpretation bee true, whensoever Jesus is named, you must both bow and confesse, and so Jesus being na∣med at every confession will call for bowing, and confession for ever. Therefore this expasition drawing with it such an unavoy∣dable absurdity, cannot bee Gods command. I cannot chuse but smile to see you who before understood this bowing, of the ex∣presse corporall knees, now being caught in the Briars here, to un∣stand it of the Tongue. When men abuse the Name, say you, then the Text is fulfilled by reproving or avoyding the company.

The damned would thanke you, if when they heare their fel∣lowes blaspheme, you could shew them a way how to avoyd their company. And seeing the Text concernes all, by this

meanes you make the Devills to reprove sinne, and the damned rebuke their fellowes when they blaspheme. But how doe you answer my instance of the third Commmandement? for that binds to inward reverence at all times and places, when we men∣tion any of Gods titles: If externall reverence at the Name Jesus be also Gods command, why should it not doe the like? This is your answer, in the very performance of this one duty (marke this in the very performance, that is, (ipso facto) is expressed our performance of the first Table, our faithfull acknowledgement of the true God, and humble worshipping of him: a reverend usage of his ho∣ly name, and sanctifying his Sabbath in due obedience; but you might as well have put in the second Table too, and then it would have beene Catholike obedience indeed; but I beleeve the first Table was observed before this foppery was devised, and I know that for the most part, the strictest observers of this cere∣mony are as prophane persons, as any alive. And then surely the Devills and damned doe performe the first Table too, for they must performe the same injuction.

To my last instance, that this exposition will draw out bow∣ing, and confession to all perpetuitie, that they shall never be en∣ded. You answer me by Master Pryn, whom in scorne you call my confessor, that makes uncovering the head a dutie in the first of Cor. 11. 4. which will not captivate us: no more doth this (say you) but there is great difference betweene reverence in Gods house and bowing the knees every time Jesus is named, from this Text: for this will breed an unavoidable slavery; which cannot tend to the Glory but dishonour of God: What is objected besides is answered already.

SECT. XII.

MY Argument here is this, that this exposition doth eclipse the glory of Christs kingdome, therefore it is false: The antecedent I prove divers wayes. First, the true exposition amplifieth Christs honour in these words, God gave him a name, as I instance in that parallel place, Ephes. 1. 21. and as it is alluded to by the Type, Dan. 2. 48. but the other exposition doth rather diminish Christ Glory, for it attributes to him a Name distinct from

power and Authority. First, you deny that Ephes. 1. 21. is a paral∣lel place, but so you deny the judgement of the best expositours who do parallel them together; and that Dan. 2. 48. in the type is also parallel to this place & Text, I appeale to any that are judici∣ous, and you have not disproved it but by your deniall. Because I expound Name for universall dominion, you tell me, that no∣thing takes me but dominion and dignitie, but it is a name of mercy that God most delighteth in, if we will have salvation, say you. Power must be powred forth in mercy; But what is all this to this Text? any thing shall take me agreeable with it, but the fantasie of your braine shall not take me: you calling Name in this Text a name of mercy, you apply it to the elect onely; but the name here concernes the Devils and reprobates also, your selfe being Judge. Therefore, if you will have this name in it selfe to bee a Name of mercy, you must make Christ to shew mercy to De∣vils and Reprobates, or else you must deny that they bow. This I say, the Name in the Text is a name of supreame authoritie over all, denoting Christ to be King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; but you affirme that the Name Jesus doth include these and all other glorious titles. See how wayward you be; before, all the stirre was about signification, and now you talke of inclusion: but I deny that the name Jesus as a Name, being as you call it, a Name of povertie and humilitie, and communicated to others, doth properly include in it the name King of Kings; why according to my stating the question, which I have proved to bee accor∣ding to the Text, and other correspondent Scriptures, you should lay to my charge, that I goe about to make the world beleeve that Christ redeemed us by a powerfull hand, but not by price, and that Christs sufferings were to confirme his Doctrine, and not to sanctifie us by his blood, I know not, except you meane this Text concerneth Christs redeeming us by his blood, and then, as I said, you must make Christ to redeeme the Devils, and then by your Do∣ctrine, you must make Christ to suffer againe, and redeeme us when he comes in his most glorious kingdome: and so whereas you say I looke like a Socinian, certaine I am you looke more like an Antichristian. To my second reason you confesse Christ Lord of every creature: and thus you contradict your selfe: for so the subjection must bee of every creature, here implyed by bowing the knee. Seeing then many crea∣tures

cannot doe their dutie as you understand the Text, in this sense he cannot be Lord of every creature. The residue is answe∣red abundantly before.

To my third reason I have shewed at large, Sect. 3. that you understanding the Text literally cannot understand it figuratively: For my part I deny not the knee, but I grant it not in a literall way, and shall yeeld it according to the true meaning of the Text, but not according to your fancy; but here you contradict your selfe, for you will have knees and hearts bow together, there∣fore you understand the Text figuratively: And seeing you joyne them together at the Name Jesus, why did you sever them in conference with me, whether you gave the heart or no I cannot tell, sure I am, you did not give the knee; if you did give the heart, by your doctrine you should have given the knee, if the inward bowing were then necessary, why not the outward? Dr. Page making this bowing a ceremony distinct from a sub∣stantiall dutie, I affirme makes it but a poore honour, and ad∣vancement to Christ after his great sufferings; and if it bee a ceremony to us, it is a ceremony to all other creatures, which you deny, the same being injoyned to all. And if, as you say, many creatures come not within compasse of Religious worship, it is plaine Religious worship is not simply here injoyned; But if you give the ceremonies, and not the substance, it is not pro∣perly Religious worship; And so this bowing is but a mocking of Christ; and if it be ceremony to us and not to other creatures, as you affirmed; I pray, what is it to Devils and Reprobates? if it be not a ceremony to them it is substantiall, it must be one of them, and what will follow hence? Those to whom Christ is a de∣stroyer must performe the substance; and you that say you bow, because of salvation, give but a ceremony. You be thankefull pee∣ces indeed for such a great mercy, that the Devils shall doe more for Damnation, then you for salvation.

To my fourth reason, whereas I say, the Text truely under∣stood enjoyns the bowing to all times and places, continually, but the other makes it to be done but one day of the weeke ordina∣rily; and then also but now and then. In your answer there is a manifest contradiction, for first you say, The Text enjoynes it not to all times and places, which indeed is no better then blasphemy, and then you presently say the whole man ought ever to submit to

Christ: how can this agree together? For if this continuall sub∣mission be grounded upon the Text, then I pray, how doe you limit it the mention of the name Jesus, when also no mention of the Name doth binde you to bow, but on Lords dayes? I would faine know of you whether Devils by the Text be not al∣wayes subject to Christ, or onely then when Jesus is named. If their subjection be alwayes to be done; then it is false to tie it to the name onely. If at the name onely, as it must be so, see∣ing you apply it so to us, see then what will necessarily follow. If the Devils be not alwayes subject to Christ by this Text, then hath not Christ Authoritie and power over them continually; for Christs authoritie, and the Creatures subjection are relatives. It will follow then that so long as they be not subject, they bee Lords. There is but one Lord, and Christ is hee; but Satan strives to be Lord, and certainely, if Christ should ever cease to be Lord, Satan gaines it; and as long as he is not in subjection he is Lord: hee must be Lord or in subjection, he cannot be no∣thing at all, and in no relation; see then the whole conse∣quence of this Doctrine; the Devill shall be Lord all the weeke, and he shall not need to bow but the Lords dayes, for then one∣ly we are bound to bow say they, (except they will have the devils to doe more service then wee) but wee need not then till Jesus be named. So it followes that Satan shall be Lord all our time, and Christ shal be Lord but two or three minutes in a week, is not this sound Doctrine? and then the Devils must be tied to come to Church; for if they be not tied they are fooles to come thither; to be subject with horrour, when they might bee at their owne libertie; or else they must set up a Church of their owne, and choose a Priest to say Service; or else upon these mens grounds how shall they ever be subject at all? For if the dutie of the Text, as these men say, be not seasonable but in times of devotion, then are not Devils capable of subjection at all, except they will make them religious and devout; well then, if the Devils must bow, but when these men doe; it will follow that when Satan is not over-ruled he will rule; when he is not in subjection, hee will command; no marvaile then if these men generally live such scandalous lives, for would not you have their lives agree with their doctrine? They teach it, they make Satan Lord over them, to rule them all the weeke; but Christ

shall be their Lord but two or three minutes on the Lords day; yea they teach this doctrine in respect of themselves, for if the •…•…owing of the knee, let them take soule-knees too if they will, be limi∣ted to the naming of Jesus, then by this Text they are not bound to bow either body or soule at any other time besides. Christ indeed should be a proper King by this Doctrine to have com∣mand of his subjects a fit or two on the Lords day, and all their time else to be at their owne command, and at the command of his utter enemy.

To my fift proofe, when I say, this doctrine depriveth Christ of his true subjects, and forceth upon him the members of Antichrist, you answer how can this be? can any plucke his out of his hands? No Sir, it cannot be, but you teach it, for seeing you damne all to hell, that will not observe your command; by this meanes you damne to hell the French Churches, the Scotish, the Nether∣land Churches, and all other Churches and Persons whatsoever that obey you not: and I hope Sir, Churches that must be damned are not true Churches; and helhounds are not Christs faithfull subjects: yea you will have none to be saved but your owne faction: But I suppose that if some Pagan should converse a while in England, and should see the deportment of these Cringers, that pretend they practise it for conscience sake, and should compare them with those that for conscience sake refuse it, that like the American savage, whom a Fryer came to instruct at his death, if he should be told that these cringers goe to heaven, and the other to hell, would choose to goe to hell with these, then to heaven with those cringers.

That none should write against your opinion till T. C. I sup∣pose you meane Mr. Cartright, is extreamely false.

That ancient and moderne Divines agree with you it becomes none but Mr. Barton, and such as he is, to affirme: You cannot bring any one Orthodox Father so to understand the Text. And for Moderne Divines, generally all Expositors that are Protestants write against you: Bishop Andrewes was the first Protestant Di∣vine that ever made it a dutie of the text, and the best learned and pious in England have beene and are generally against it. And though perhaps some very learned men might through the iniquity of the times yeeld to the practise of it, yet I suppose few in their judgement held it by the Text.

To my last reason, that it depriveth Christ of his Glory at the day of judgement; seeing, first, it puts no difference betweene Christs king∣dome inchoate, and made perfect. And secondly, because it will make the full subjection of every creature to consist onely in a ceremo∣ny distinct from a substantiall dutie as Doctor Page calls it, and to be the sole performance at that day, when Christ shall come to be fully glorified by all his creatures; You say nothing to it but what you say elsewhere, and I say againe, so to hold is flat blasphemy, therefore you have more cause to recant for delive∣ring such doctrine, then I for censuring it, as it justly deserves; I was never against externall reverence, but not limited at the Name Jesus.

SECT. XIII.

HEre I say that it is not probable that it is a dutie of the Text, see∣ing it is not typified or prophesied in the old Testament; You have not disproved my Antecedent: to say that a truth may bee in analogy though not typified, or prophesied, is nothing to the Question, except you meane signified to come to passe by the analogie. Those places, Act. 3. 3. 8. and Act. 10. 43. speake of what should come to passe in Christ; that of Matth. 5. 18. speakes of jots and tittles, and I shewed you, that small matters were fore∣told in Christ: This should have beene much more, if it had beene the honour of Christs Kingdome. But at length you will finde it in Type and prophesie, but that in Gen. 37. 9. is nothing to your purpose, except you could prove that Josephs brethren bowed to their Brothers name: neither that of Exod. 17. 11. except you can prove that Moses bowed to the Name Joshuah. Tertul∣lian doth not speake of the bare literall Name. Those Scriptures which you bring, as Exod. 3. 15. Psal. 75. 1. Psal. 111. 9. Isay 45. 23. are to no purpose, for because Gods name is Jehovah, his name is neare, his name is holy, all knees must bow to Jeho∣vah, that is, to God himselfe, therefore that all knees must bow at or to the Name Jesus is a ridiculous inconsequent.

EECT. XIIII.

HEre I say that if this bowing were a necessary command of God, it is probable that there would be some examples for it, but there are none. Those places that I have brought for my consequent are weighty; for they concerne examples of faith, and the effects and fruits thereof in obedience; there be exam∣ples enough in Scripture of all necessary duties; and though there is no example precisely of putting off the hat, yet there is of externall reverence in Gods house, which you have sufficiently proved to my hand, and you and your friends hold any exter∣nall reverence sufficient at the Name Jesus, as putting off the hat, bowing downe the body in stead of the knee, but you cannot bring any example of any externall reverence whatsoever, given at the mention of the Name Jesus. That of Matth. 17. 6. though it concerne not the Question was no worship properly,* 1.58 but an infirmitie of feare. That which you speake of the sense of the Name makes not for you; for our Question is about the name, and I am sure you never bow to the sense without the Name. It is strange that if this were a duty by this Text never before practised, that it should have no example, or shew of ex∣ample to confirme it.

I have done with the chiefe Arguments, and now I shall la∣bour to be briefe.

SECT. XV.

AS for your proud scorne, I thinke I have made better use of my reading than your selfe, who wrest it to the destructi∣on of your selfe and others. The Fathers generally understand Name here for the Name of God, or the onely begotten Son of God, by your owne confession, therefore they are against you. But you sophistically confound these names with the Name Jesus, as if they were all one; if so, why doe you preferre the Name Je∣sus above God? Dr. Page his Query is answered in Sect. 8.

Zanchy understands not Name here for Jesus; therefore you produce him subtilly to deceive the Reader.

Of all the Antients within the first 700. yeares, none but Ori∣gen, who is no Orthodox Father understands Name above eve∣ry Name for the Name Jesus,* 1.59 yet you produce him not, to pre∣ferre it above Divine Names, yet he on Rom. 14. 11. doth over∣throw your literall bowing. Because I say from Hierome, that the Church fulfils this Text, by praying to the Father in the Name of Christ: you say I must inferre that all creatures must doe so too, but you trifle, for the materiall bowing is subjection, which is the same to all, but the forme and manner of it differs according to the different state of the creature. I doe not understand the materiall bowing so, as you absurdly understand it of a religi∣ous ceremony. You have not made good what I desired, those Fathers which you bring in your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. doe but set downe the words of the Text, none speakes of coroporall bowing at the Name Jesus mentioned.

SECT. XVI.

YOu have such a facultie in striving against the truth, that you care not what you say in defense of errour. Your selfe, and all your friends understand the Text of the sole bowing at the Name Jesus, which ordinary practise confirmes, therefore no other Names may be bowed to, without profaning the name Jesus, for if all names may be indifferently bowed to, to what purpose was this Text? for then God should mocke his Sonne, in advancing him to an honour which he had before. This in effect I said, upon which the whole Section depends; Therefore till you answer this, (which you have not done) whatsoever you babble in this Section vanisheth.

SECT. XVII.

THe Bishops generally did not give it in charge in Visitation-Articles, before this Archbishops time, how then could the Churchwardens present it? and in my time it was generally neglected in the Universitie; worthy men in our Church wrote against it in their printed allowed works, what sinceritie was this

to let these things alone, if it be a dutie of the Text, and to presse the other ceremonies? The tale you lay to my charge is not so.

SECT. XVIII.

I Wrong not Doctor Page, for as he states the question uncer∣tainly, though he ground it on the Text,* 1.60 so I appeale to any reader that shall diligently peruse him, whether hee be not content that it be held a thing indifferent. As for my selfe, I confesse that in former times I held it indifferent, so other di∣vine names may have a like respect, but I never held it any way from the Text.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Page 50.
• * 1.2

  Job 6. 30. 1. 2.
• * 1.3

  Name above every Name what it is not.
• * 1.4

  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?
• * 1.5

  Pag. 197.
• * 1.6

  Sect. 5.
• * 1.7

  On Phil 2. 9.
• * 1.8

  Exposi∣tion of the Creede.
• * 1.9

  Learne to live, Chap. 14. Pag. 217.
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 36.
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 22.
• * 1.12

  An••…••…. p. 3.
• * 1.13

  On Phil. 2. 9. 10.
• * 1.14

  Your selfe say, that the declaration of a thing is not more wor∣thy then the thing, Part. 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.15

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pag. 15.
• * 1.16

  Part 2. Sect. 4.
• * 1.17

  Page 55.
• * 1.18

  Page 197.
• * 1.19

  Name above every Name, what it is.
• * 1.20

  On Phil. 2. 9.
• * 1.21

  De natura Dei ••. 1. c. 17.
• * 1.22

  Phil. 2. 9. 10.
• * 1.23

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 88.
• * 1.24

  If you had dealt fairely you should have set down my words as they were cor∣rected and not as they were misprinted.
• * 1.25

  Catech. p. 308. l. 31.
• * 1.26

  Ezek 7. 17. Isay 35. 3.
• * 1.27

  Instit of bowing, p. 48.
• * 1.28

  Instit. of bowing, p. 87.
• * 1.29

  Ant. p. 44.
• * 1.30

  Learne to live, Chap. 14.
• * 1.31

  You doe not here answer the parallel of kissing Christ, Psal. 2. 12. by which subje∣ction is signifi∣ed as well as by bowing, but you say, Sect. 18. bow∣ing and the kisse hold not; because we have the name to bow to, nor the per∣son to kisse, but at the day of judgement hee will ap∣peare; belike then you will be so bold as to kisse Christ at that day, if once you be made Lord Bishop.
• * 1.32

  Rev. 5. 13. Psal 19. 1, 2, 3. Psal. 148.
• * 1.33

  * Sect. 5. You make the men∣tioning of Je∣sus to bee a signe how to know when to bow, by this reason you must make it also a signe how to know when to preach and pray.
• * 1.34

  Instit. of bow∣ing, p. 41.
• * 1.35

  Zanchy your owne witnesse so understan∣deth it.
• * 1.36

  * Dedit illi no∣men quod est su∣pranomen, sensui est, Christum, qua etiam homo, propter suam obedientiam & humilitatem supra omnia fuisse a patre exaltatum, ut nulla sit vel in coelis, vel in terris par dig∣nitas, Da 369. Elohim, l. 3. c. 2. p. 430.
• * 1.37

  Exposition of the Creed.
• * 1.38

  Page 398.
• * 1.39

  Psal. 109.
• * 1.40

  See Sect. 2.
• * 1.41

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 59. & p. 65.
• * 1.42

  Act. 4 12
• * 1.43

  Calvin in Locum.
• * 1.44

  In part 2. Sect. 1. you say I slander the Church for gi∣ving my judge∣ment concer∣ning the tran∣slation of Phil. 2. 9. but here your selfe alter the translation for your owne ends.
• * 1.45

  Act. 10.
• * 1.46

  Luke 9. 56.
• * 1.47

  Joh. 12. 47.
• * 1.48

  Rom. 26.
• * 1.49

  De 369. Elo∣him, l. c. 3. 3 p. 437.
• * 1.50

  Matth. 23. 8. 10.
• * 1.51

  Jam. 4 1.
• * 1.52

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 p. 62. 63.
• * 1.53

  Zach. 14. ••••.
• * 1.54

  On Phil. 2. 9.
• * 1.55

  Catech. p. 155.
• * 1.56

  De Trinitate l. 8. c. 6. p. 3 58.
• * 1.57

  See Aretius loco 7. de Deo, & Bucanus, loco 1. de Tri∣nitate.
• * 1.58

  Calvin in loc.
• * 1.59

  See Willet on Rom. 14 Contro. 9.
• * 1.60

  Justific. of bowing, pag. 18. & alibi.