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

About this Item

Title
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
Author
Giles, Mascall, 1595 or 6-1652.
Publication
Printed at London :: for Daniel Frere, and are to be sold at his Shop at the signe of the red Ball in Little-Britaine,
1643.
Rights/Permissions

To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.

Subject terms
Giles, Mascall, 1595 or 6-1652. -- Treatise against superstitious Jesu-worship.
Barton, Thomas, 1599 or 1600-1682 or 3. -- Antiteichisma.
Catholic Church -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item
http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A85889.0001.001
Cite this Item
"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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A85889.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 4, 2024.

Pages

Page 58

SECT. VII.

HEre I say that Doctor Page his reason is not good, that we should bow at the Name Jesus, because above all other Names it minds us of Christs death. First, I denyed the antece∣dent, affirming that many called God their Saviour in the old Testament, yet few supposed that God should die, but you say very few, which I say not, I deny not that it was knowne, but it was not commonly and clearely knowne, as appeares by Christs Disciples, who though they called him Jesus, yet would hardly be perswaded that redemption should bee by his blood, though they were often told of it, Joh. 20. 9. Therefore Jesus is not the chiefest name signifying death; but the Name Christ is rather, because it denotes him to be a Priest, and such a Priest, that did also shed his owne blood, and therefore I say againe, God could have beene a Jesus if he had would, without becom∣ming a Priest, he could not indeed, because hee would not, but he never could have beene a Priest unlesse hee had beene a Jesus. You have not overthrowne the consequent, for first, how have you proved by the Scriptures that the Name of Christs death is the Name of his Glory? Secondly, I goe not against the or∣der of the Text, when I say the Name above every Name leades us to Christs glory, and not to his sufferings. I deny not that God in the Text proceeds from humility to glory, yet is it ab∣surd to confound Christs humiliation with his exaltation; and the Name of the one with the Name of the other; The Name Jesus lookes to hell saith Doctor Page, but we must looke for Christ in heaven. Thirdly, neither have I changed the Question, but it is you rather; for doe you bow onely to the Name, because you say (but prove it not) that it is a suffering Name? doe you not bow also to the sense of the Name, because it signifieth salvation by dying? This you stand upon continually, therefore the ignorantia elenchi is in your selfe.* 1.1 My marginall note stands firme against you; for seeing you say you bow in the sense of the Name Jesus, the sense of the Name is as well conveighed to the understanding by sight as by hearing: your selfe make it all one as I have noted, Part 1. Sect. 8.

Notes

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.