SECT. II.

HEre I will not spend Paper, for though you professe to discusse the truth uprightly, yet the intelligent Reader cannot but mistrust that you have gone mainely both against your science and conscience, you prove no∣thing from Scripture, nor answer the Scriptures I have brought, but depart not onely from the judgement of your owne Authors in the Antecedent, as Zanchy, &c. but also from the Question; for you confound the Name Jesus with the Person: and whereas I reason a dicto secundum quid, speaking of names considered in Christ; you reason ad dictum simpliciter, to those names con∣sidered in themselves; the difference betweene you and me here is this, whether Christ suffered most in his name Jesus, by which he was commonly called, or his glorious titles, God, Sonne of God, &c. which were concealed, and decryed. You say in the name Jesus, I say in the other Names, because in respect of these he suffered poenam damni, & sensus, which in respect of the Name Jesus he did not. I will illustrate this by this fa∣miliar Page  52 instance. Thomas Barton for his demerits is now decryed Parson of Westminston, yet the Parson of Westminston in simplici ter∣mino suffers not, but I feare me the Parson of Westminston consi∣dered in Master Barton suffers: I would faine know of you Ma∣ster Barton, where you complaine most, of your Name Thomas, or of being decryed Parson of Westminston; I beleeve it would more cheere you to be cryed up againe Parson of Westminston, than to have your name declared Thomas, which was never denyed you: Let the judicious Reader apply this.

SECT. III.

HEre I say that this reason, that we must bow at the Name Jesus, because it signifyeth a Saviour, is not grounded on the Text. You answer you are sorry that obedience will not be, except a reason be given. Sir, I desire to give obedience to any certaine command, though I have no reason, but if any shall affirme that God commands upon a reason, I desire a proofe of this reason from the word. But you refer me to your 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 18. where you say it is at large, that the Name Jesus is above all names, to God, to us, which you have from Bishop Andrewes: and then you adde of your owne, that it is above all in it selfe.

It is above all to God you say, because no other Name had us men, and our salvation in it. But I hope Sir, that our Salvation is not in the literall name: but what is this to the Text; when name there is of larger extent, then concerning us men onely? I pray Sir, is Jesus more to God than Jehovah, which denotes his glorious excellency in himselfe, his life, and essence? is our Salvation more to God than these? Christ indeed laid downe for us the life of man in becomming our Saviour, but not the life of God. The life of God restored the life of man.

To us you say it is above all, because of the great worke of sal∣vation wrought for us; but it is false, for Gods glory, and life should be dearer to us than our owne benefit. You be like an unnatu∣rall Page  53 childe, that so hee can have the inheritance hee cares not so much for his fathers life. But what made Christ a Saviour, and his death so meritorious, but because hee was Jehovah? What drawes out our salvation to all eternitie, but because he is Jeho∣vah? If God should cease to be Jehovah, our Salvation would come to an end.* Here I will bring your owne witnesse,* Zanchy, a∣gainst you.

In that you say that Jesus in it selfe is above the Name of God,* because you prove nothing from Scripture, but exceede in blas∣phemy all that ever wrote before you, I will not defile my selfe with such stuffe: onely this I say, that it is infinitely absurd to hold, that any worke of God, yea take all his workes together, can be greater than Gods life; for if hee should demolish all his workes, he could worke againe, but if he should cease to be, hee can worke no more. Therefore to affirme that to prophane the Name Jesus is a greater sinne than to prophane the Name God, is but a blasphemous assertion of a Popish Author owned by his Pupill Barton.

As for my Argument, if the Name Jesus be above every Name of God, it will make the second Person above the other Persons, be∣cause his maine answer is his conceit without proofe that Jesus is the essentiall name of God, and made proper by dispensation, it being disproved Part 1. Sect. 9. I leave it, onely this I will I say of it, if the other Persons have made the name of the essence proper▪ it will follow that they have made the essence it selfe proper, then none should be God, but the second Person onely; for as Names are,* saith he, so are the vertues to be esteemed.

As for Bishop Andrewes as he is to be understood, he plainely contradicts himselfe,* and I pray how can hee affirme, that the Person of Christ is gone from us; when in the same place he saith, that Christs body and soule, and those not without his Deity, are really present in the Sacrament? The person of Christ may bee said to live, and dwell among his Saints though not personally, yet in and through his Spirit, per 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Last of all, because I thus reply to the answer of those which Page  54 say that Jesus is the Name of the three Persons, and so by bowing at this Name they honour all alike; that if Jesus be the Name of the three Persons, then cannot it be the Name above every Name in the Text as they say, because that name is onely proper to the se∣cond Person; because he onely was incarnate, and Mediator, and God gave him that name after his humiliation. You not knowing how to shuffle up a faire answer, in a scurrilous way, lay Arianisme to my charge, and tell me that I am put to a shift, and that pitifully, because say you by this reply I shake downe my owne pillar, Part 1. Sect. 1. for so I must deny (you say) what I there affirmed, that supereminent power and glory is the Name above every Name, because the three Persons have supereminent power and glory, or else I must affirme that the Name Jesus is proper to the second Person by dispensation, as also in my owne Tenet, supereminent power and glory. But Sir it is you that shift and not I, for supereminent power and glo∣ry, which is essentiall and so common to every person in Tri∣nity, is not here the Name above every Name, but that supere∣minent power and glory, which is the advancement, and ho∣nour of Christ Mediator, God and Man. It is impossible that the essentiall Name of God can be made proper, unlesse the es∣sence it selfe be made proper. Therefore your conceit of a pro∣prietie by dispensation is frivolous. If the Name Jesus bee (as you say) essentiall, it cannot be proper to the second Person; and if proper, it cannot be essentiall. The Name above every Name, which I have proved is supereminent power and glory, is given to Christ as Mediatour, and therefore it is not essentiall in him as a Person of the Trinitie; therefore my pillar stands as firme as ever it did, and you shew your selfe but a trifler in this Reply.

SECT. IV.

HEre you doe uncharitably wrest my words, for I doe not say, that no Name hath any excellency for signification sake, or that the Name Jesus hath no preheminence at all for the sense of it, but that it is not above every Name in the Text: and there∣fore to be bowed to because it signifieth a Saviour.

I say it againe, disprove it if you can. By this reason I said we should rather bow at the Name Christ, which doth more par∣ticularly, and expressely denote our salvation than the Name Jesus, as Ʋrsin declares; denoting his three offices by which hee saves us; You answer Christ is not a Name but title of honour, but if it be not a Name I know not how to judge of things, hee being more often called by that Name since the Ascension than Jesus. But being a title of honour, titles of honour are more excellent than proper Names. But see how this Sophister immediatly forgets himselfe, for presently he calls it the Name of Christs humanitie; then belike the title of the humanitie is a title of honour, and Jesus the title of the Deity,* a poore and humble name, as he elsewhere calls •. But what is his reason that Christ is the name of the humanitie? viz. because it signifieth annointed, and God cannot be annointed; true, God in his essence simply considered cannot be annointed. But Christ God and Man was annointed to be our Mediatour, as an∣nointing signifieth his designation to that office; This I said, that if the sense of our salvation should make us bow, the sense of it, and the manner how it is wrought is more clearely set out to us in the Name Christ than Jesus, which Name I affirme doth also more fully set out the Person: for Jesus denotes onely a Savi∣our, but Christ sheweth who and what he is, viz. the promised Mes∣sias, a Priest, a Prophet, and King: Yea it doth more properly de∣note the Person, for it denotes none but he, but Jesus may de∣note some body else.

SECT. V.

VVHat is said here, is sufficiently answered in Part 1. Sect. 1. & 8. Here he wresteth my words, for when I say the Name Jesus concernes the elect onely, he saith I say the bowing concernes the Elect onely.

Doctor Page his answer is nothing to the purpose, for if the Devils bow onely because Jesus is a Saviour to others, then doe they not bow by a reason proper to themselves, which is con∣trary to the Text, for the reason there is common to all, viz. be∣cause Christ hath dominion and power over all, which is so plaine that you are impudent to deny it.

Though all shall not fare alike at the day of judgement, yet shall all appeare alike: so the subjection materially is the same to all, though formally it differ.

SECT. VI.

HEre I say, to bow at the Name Jesus onely, which Name signifieth our Saviour, and not at Jehovah, which signifieth Gods essentiall glory, is a preferring our salvation above Gods glory, therefore it is a wicked Tenet. You first deny the Ante∣cedent, and say your bowing is specified to bee to the glory of the Father, but you must first prove it from the Text. Then you say we are Simonians, Saturnians, if wee thinke to serve God for nothing: O horrible blasphemy is Jesus all, and Jehovah nothing? Is God to us something, and God in his glorious na∣ture nothing? is it all to serve God for our selves, and nothing to serve him for himselfe? When I alleadge Deut. 28. 58. to prove that Jehovah is Gods glorious name, you absurdly wrest me contrary to my meaning, that I should say wee must serve Page  57 God more for feare than love, which is nothing agreeable to my words.

Againe you impudently wrong mee, in laying to my charge that I make Iesus and Iehovah not the same God, it is your selfe that doe it, in making Iesus greater than Iehovah, I onely distinguish the names, (which you here confound for your owne ends) and shew that Iesus sheweth what God is to us; Iehovah, what he is in himselfe; therefore to worship him as Iesus, and not as Iehovah,* is abominable. There is nothing else worth replying to, being cleared else-where; onely I thinke good to vindicate my selfe from one clamorous imputation.

When I say, if we must bow onely in respect of salvation, De∣vils, and Reprobates should be more sincere in their service then we, who must bow to Christ as he is their Lord, but wee onely by the opinion of these men as hee is our Saviour; here hee blesseth himselfe as if some spirit appeared before him. But wee will see, whether we can allay this spirit, or lay him in his right place. He and his friends understand the proper dutie of the Text in it selfe considered to be a Religious ceremony to bee perfor∣med in holy times,* and places. And himselfe holds that all An∣gels and men, just and unjust, are bound to performe voluntary obedience to glory. If the Devils there be so bound, if they per∣forme religious acts, and observe holy times (for the bowing materially is the same for all) gratis, when they can looke for nothing but damnation; to require good for evill being a note of perfection, much more to requite good for so great an evill as utter destruction: they should attaine to an unmatchable per∣fection. Therefore Sir weepe not for me, but for your selfe, it is your owne doctrine, I would your hand might tremble in mercy, and your eyes drop for the monstrous blasphemies which you have let fall in your booke.

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.* 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.

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 Page  60 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.