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

SECT. VIII.

HEre I affirme, that it is no good reason to bow at the Name Jesus because the fulnesse of the God-head dwells in Christ bodily, Col. 2. 9. That which you reply to the deniall of the consequence is nothing, but what hath been sufficiently cleared before. And that which you alleadge from Tertullian is against you. For if the Names Jesus and Christ do one of them imply the other, why doe you make such a difference? though it be your direct opini∣on by the humanity to climbe up to the glorious Trinitie, which I deny not; yet this will not prove the consequence: and I ve∣rily beleeve, that God will accept our worship in, and by the Name Christ, as well as Jesus; I say it is no Reason to affirme that we should bow at the Name Jesus rather than Christ, be∣cause some say, that Jesus is the Name of the Person, Christ of the office, because Christ by his office brings us the Father.

Jesus doth denote his office as well as his Person, though more summarily his office; Christ denotes his Person as well as his office, though more clearely his office then the Name Jesus doth; yea it denotes his person more properly and certain∣ly then the name Jesus, which denotes some body else, but Christ none but he. There is nothing else worth answering, onely this I stand still to justifie, that upon the foregoing reason if we must bow to the Father at the mention of the Name Jesus onely, we must as well pray to the Father by mentioning of that Name onely; neither have you disproved it, for though Prayer bee one dutie and bowing another, yet are they both parts of wor∣ship, and lip-prayer is no more substantiall than outward bow∣ing, the excellency of both is in the heart.

For the conclusive Argument, the heads are but barely denyed without proofe, and what I affirmed is sufficiently justified in the premises, and confirmed in this reply, and so I leave it. But Sir I must tell you, that whereas you lay to my charge that I had others assistance in my booke; It is false, I am not beholding to any for two words, either in informing or re∣forming otherwise than what light I have demonstrated to have

received from such Authors as I have read, neither have I desi∣red any assistance in this reply; Therefore none of my brethren are to share with mee in any infirmitie whatsoever in either Tract.