ARGUMENTS AGAINST BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS.  
COMPOSED ABOUT five years since, BY A REVEREND MINISTER OF THE CITY OF LONDON FOR his own defence.  
Proving the unlawfulness and injustice of imposing that posture in God's worship, which is neither enjoined by the Word of God nor by the Canon of the Church (though pretence be made by some, to be commanded from both) as appears chief in the first and last Arguments.  Revelation 22.18, 19 
For I testify untoe very man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book.  
And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book.  1 Cor. 14.26. 
Let all things be done unto Edifying.  
Published in the year, 1641.   

ARGUMENTS AGAINST BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS.  

ARGUMENT. I.  
ALL worship of GOD that is taught by the commandments of men, and not prescribed by GOD himself is will-worship, and simply unlawful.  
But such is this bowing at the Name of jesus.  
Ergo will-worship and simply unlawful.  
The Major Proposition is from Heaven, and therefore greater than to be denied, Esa. 29.13. Col. 2.22. and elsewhere.  
The Minor likewise I conceive to be evident, Because there is no such worship to Christ taught by God, or Christ himself, as the bowing of the Body to him upon the mention, or sounding of the Name jesus. As for that place Phil. 2.10. which some look upon as countenancing this worship; I conceive it doth not so much as look towards it. For First it is here said, not that at the Name of Jesus, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the name of jesus every knee shall bow. The Proposition iv, in, never (to my remembrance) noting the time when, (except it be in construction with words, signifying time, as Mark 1.9. It came to pass in those days, and such like.) But very frequently the cause for, or through which, as Mark. 11.28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: in what power, that is, by or through what power dost thou these things; So Rom 7.23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, carrying me or leading me Captive in, that is, by the Law of sin, besides many other like instances: so that the name of jesus here meant must not be any name made of letters and syllables, but of power, majesty and terror: because there must be found in this Name that, which must be that efficient cause of the sujection here spoken of, that which must command this bowing the knee from all Creatures whatsoever, which of all literal names or titles that are given to Christ in the Scriptures, is least of all intimated in that sweet and gracious Name of jesus, a Saviour: what is there in that Name to compel or force the Devils to bow the knee unto him?  
Secondly, neither is it here said that, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that at, or in the name Jesus: but in the name (of) jesus every knee shall bow, as all translators read i●. Now any other name or title given to our Saviour in the Scripture, as Christ, Emanuel, etc. may in better propriety of speech be called the names of jesus, than Jesus itself, to urge and say that jesus is the name of jesus, savours not the dialect of the Holy-Ghost.  
Thirdly, That name of jesus here spoken of, wherein it is said that every knee shall bow, is such a name as was not given to Christ, till after his sufferings; and at the time of his exaltation and sitting down at the right hand of majesty: for it is expressly said, to have been given unto him by God (his Father) by way of reward or recompense, for that great service he did unto him in that great abasement and humiliation of himself unto death: Wherefore (saith the Text) God hath exalted him, and given him a Name, verse 9 namely for that obedience and humiliation of himself, mentioned verse 6, 7, 8. But the name jesus, we know was given unto him long before, at the time of his Circumcision; therefore this is not the name that every knee shall bow at.  
Fourthly, If this worship of bowing at the name jesus were commanded in this Scripture, than were it a sin and simply unlawful to omit it at any time whensoever it sounds, which no man ever yet affirmed that I have heard of.  
Fiftly, If bowing the body at the name jesus be enjoined in this Text, by the same interpretation, the Confessing with the tongue that jesus Christ is the Lord, must be enjoined also, and as altogether necessary as the other: for those things which God hath joined together can no man put asunder.  
Sixtly, If this worship of Christ (of bowing to him) mentioned in this place be due unto him in relation to his Name jesus, or as he is a Saviour: how come the things under the earth (by which all interpreters that I know understand the Devils, except some Popish, that fish for Purgatory in the words.) How come the Devils (I said) to be charged with men, touching the exhibiting of this reverence or adoration to Christ, who (we know) have neither part nor fellowship with them in that great and gracious business of salvation?  
Seventhly, I do not know any Orthodox or ancient interpreter, so to interpret the place.  
But perhaps it willbe said, Notwithstanding, though this Scripture will not carry it, yet will it not follow that bowing at the, name of Jesus should be will-worship, because bowing to his person being a prescribed and unquestionable lawful worship, it may be performed at any time: and therefore at such a time as the name Jesus is named, aswell as at any other time: for election of a man's time when be will worship God, doth ●ot alter the nature of the worship; nor make it ever the more will-worship.  
To this I Answer, True election of time for the worship of God, or of Christ, in respect of Conveniency, and freedom from distraction of business: or in respect of any such circumstance as may really further or better the worship, hath no such influence into it, as to alter or change the nature of it, because such a choice of time is rather of Gods choosing then of ours; for the Scriptures without, and the Law of Conscience within, commands us to make choice of such time when we may serve and worship God after the best and holiest manner. But to rule the election of time, for giving any outward act of worship or adoration unto God, by any such Circumstance which hath no relation at all to this worship; (I mean to better it or further it in him that performs it,) but only that which is founded on the device of men, I conceive to be an unlawful election, and not to be made. As for example, for a man to make choice of the time to bow himself to God, when he stands before an Image, were simply unlawful, because he regulates the choice of his time by such a Circumstance as doth no way further him in that act of worship, but directly tends both to further the Idolater in his wicked opinion, who thinks he doth well to worship God, in an Image, and also to scandalise those that are weak.  
Therefore to choose a time to worship Christ when such a certain name of his shall be presented unto us, which makes indeed a representation of him unto us, as an Image doth: but hath nothing more in it to further such an act of adoration, than an Image hath, and hath in like manner been abused as Images have, and is apt to cause the like offence, as bowing to God before an Image doth, is an unlawful election for the time of such worship.  
If it be further replied and said, That the name Jesus is of Divine Institution: for the representation of his person to the mind and spirit of a man, whereas the Image is purely humane: and besides that there is an intimation of that salvation which comes by him, given out by the name jesus, which is no way intimated in an Image: and therefore that there is no Comparison to he made between bowing at the name jesus, and before an Image.  
To this I Answer: First, though there be some difference between the name jesus, and an Image of Christ in respect of the institution, yet in respect of representation made by either, there is none: for the Image represents to the mind that very same person (and no other) which the name doth: so that if the worship be lawful in respect of the representation simply, which is made by the name jesus, it willbe as lawful before the Image, because as (I say) there is a representation also of the same person.  
Secondly, though the name jesus be of divine institution for the representation of the person, wherein the Image fails, yet in respect of any outward adoration, to be given unto this representation by that name, there is no more to be found of any divine institution, for the name, then for the Image, so that to express an outward act of adoration upon the bare sound or hearing of the name, having no more warrant from God then doing the like before an Image hath; it apparently follows, that they are both worships of the same nature, and one to have as much in it of the will of Man as the other.  
Thirdly, the name jesus being of divine institution, which the Image is not: it is a greater sin any ways to misuse it, either by obscuring or perverting the intentions of God in it, or by multiplying our own upon it, than it is to abuse an Image, which is but the device of men's heads, and the works of their hands.  
Fourthly, however in respect of institution, the name may seem more capable of adoration than the Image: yet since the name is not so apropriated to the person of Christ by divine institution in respect of the letters and sound of it, but that it is common to other persons with him, and represent others to the mind as well as Him; whereas the Image is wholly appropriated unto him, and represents no other to the mind but him alone; in this respect the Image seems to be the safer and better call to exhibit worship unto Christ, than the bare sound of the name, because it doth not give that certain and distinct signification or representation of the person to be worshipped, which the Image doth. As Paul speaks of the Trumpet, Cor. 1.14.8. If it give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? so this name jesus, giving only an uncertain sound or representation, representing aswell other persons to the mind that are not to be worshipped, aswell as him to whom the worship is due, it seems a very unfit signat for worship to be given unto it, yea in this respect which is most intrinsical and essential to the point in hand, it comes short of the Image.  
Fifthly, (and last) whereas it is laid in the Objection, that there is in the name an intimation given of that salvation which comes to the world by him, which is not in the Image. To this I Answer Three things:  
First, That there is in the Crucifix more than an intimation given of that salvation that comes by him; there is a representation of that death, and those sufferings by which that salvation was purchased and wrought.  
Secondly, If that an intimation of the salvation that comes by Christ be a proper and sufficient ground to found an act of adoration upon, then is the name and title of Saviour, the fittest summons for men of this Nation, who (generally) understand not the intimations, or significations of Names in other Languages, but only in their own.  
Lastly, if that an intimation of salvation coming by Christ, were proper to build an act of outward worship or adoration upon; then this worship is rather to be given, when any such sentence is read, or spoken, which prospicuously and fully informeth the mind and soul hereof, then at the mention of that Name jesus. As for example, upon the hearing of this or the like sentences in Scripture, The Son of man come to seek & save that which was lost: as that Rom. 5.8. Whilst we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Or that Io. 3. So God loved the world, etc. in these and many the like say, there is a full intimation or signification of that great salvation, that comes by Christ more than is the bare mention of the name jesus. By all which it evidently appeareth, that in respect of any lawful or warrantable ground for an outward act of adoration, there is no more in the sound or name jesus then in an Image.   

The second Argument.  
NO Command or invention of men, that superinduceth any other use or device upon any the sacred names or titles of God, beyond what himself hath declared in his Word, is to be received: But this Command of bowing doth this, it makes the name or title Jesus, to serve for another purpose than God hath any where declared. Ergo such a command is not to be received.  
The Major (I conceive) will not be denied: Because for men to meddle with any of the great and fearful names of God, and to dispose of them as they please, without express Authority from himself, is presumption of the highest magnitude.  
The Minor likewise hath evidence enough to be believed, because there is not the least intimation in the Scripture that God ever intended that any such use should ever be made of the name jesus, as to summon men to bow their bodies at the name or sound of it.   

ARGUMENT. 3.  
THat practice which directly tendeth to revive an ancient Heresy, or dangerous opinion in the Church (especially having nothing in it to counterpoyce such a danger) is not to be introduced or assented unto. But this practice of bowing at the name jesus, directly tendeth hereunto, and hath nothing at all to counterpoise such a danger: therefore it is not to be introduced or assented unto.  
The Major carrieth its own light with it.  
The Minor is thus clearly proved; That which directly tendeth to induce men to think or believe that jesus and Christ are two different persons, and that jesus is more excellent than Christ, directly tendeth to revive an old and dangerous Heresy (viz. that of corinth … and others, who held that jesus and Christ were two persons: and the one greater than the other.) But this boweng at the name of jesus, (other names being passed over without the like reverence done at the mention of them) directly tendeth to induce men to think, etc. Ergo.  
The reason of the Minor is, because reverence argueth excellency upon whomsoever its cast or conferred: and where either it is denied or not exhibited, it implieth a person or condition of less excellency.   

ARGUMENT. 4.  
ALl worship of God that is not grounded upon the Moral Law, is Adulterous worship, and not to be tendered or exhibited.  
But this bowing at the name jesus is a worship not founded upon the Moral Law. Ergo.  
The Major I conceive unquestionable: Because the worship of God being a Moral duty, (and that of the chiefest and highest rank,) it can have no other rule or foundation, but the Moral Law: and the same Author, that hath power to exact a new worship, must have power also to make a new Law (or further it) because there is no act (especially Religious) justifiable, but by some rule: where by the rectitude or goodness of it must be tried and demonstrated.  
If it be said, This bowing is no worship, but a pious ceremony, or sign, or outward expression of worship, or the like:  
I Answer: to deny bowing the body unto God, to be truly and properly worship, is to overthrow the whole species or kind of that, which we call external worship: for what outward act of the body is rather to be called worship, then bowing down the body; prostration happily, or falling flat on the ground, may be conceived a further degree of this worship: But if prostration before God be worship properly so called; then must bowing down of the body towards the earth unto him, be of the same kind of worship also: because it is a degree or part of the same act.  
Secondly, if bowing the knee to Christ be no worship of him, it must needs be a mocking of him, as it is said of the Roman Soldiers (Mat 27.29.) They bowed their knees before him, and mocked him, etc. he that boweth the knee to the Lord Chr●st, and do●h not intent to honour and worship him in it, doubtless mocketh him thereby.  
Thirdly, there is nothing more apparent from the Scripture, then that bowing the knee is worship (properly so called) yea the worship of God is often signified by bowing the knee before him, Isa. 45.23. I have sworn by myself (saith God) that every knee shall hue unto me.  
The Minor is thus declared, That worship of God which is built upon an Ecclesiastical Constitution, is not founded upon the Moral Law But this worship of bowing is built upon an Ecclesiastical Constitution.  
Ergo, etc.  
The Major I explicate and demonstrate thus: Two Laws which are not subordinate (I mean w●th a logical subordination,) but contradistinguished one against the other, cannot be together the ground of one and the same duty. But the Law Moral, and Law Ecclesiastical are Laws of a different kind, not subordinate, but contradistinguished. Ergo, etc.  
The reason of the Minor is: Because Ordinations, or Constitutions Ecclesiastical, respect matters of circumstance, and things indifferent; the Moral Law only treateth of, and obligeth to things of absolute necessity.  
If it be here Objected and said though, The subject matter of Ecclesiastical Laws and Constittuions be (in the general) matters of indifferency and decency, about the worship of God: yet if such Constitutions take, in any part of the Morality of it this maketh it not will worship, because it is the will of man it should be done, supposing it to be the will of God first.  
To this I Answer. True, if this were the case, than were there no exception to be taken against the thing itself, but only against the methodical proceeding of the Constitution, promiscuously imposing things of mere indifferency, with things of absolute necessity. But it hath not yet been proved, that this worship hath any other Mother, but either the Constitutions or Customs of men; the Word of God, or Moral Law cannot yet be compelled to own, or to acknowledge it; so than it being the Son of a stranger, it is not to be brought into the Temple of the Lord.  
If it be further Objected, That this rule makes as strongly against kneeling at the Communion, as against bowing at the name of Jesus, because it hath no other foundation, but the like Ecclesiastical Constitution.  
To this I Answer: No: It is fare otherwise in this; In the duty of receiving of the Sacrament, there is a concurrence of sundry spiritual and inward acts or duties of the soul, whereunto the outward gesture of kneeling is natural, and suitable, and sufficiently licenced, and warranted in the Scripture, (though it be not where indeed determined, to be of absolute necessity in the performance of the same. As for example, there is an act of thanksgiving, in the duty of receiving, which being a branch of prayer (largely taken) there can be no outward gesture more natural and suitable to it, then kneeling. Besides there is an act of prayer (strictly taken) etc.  
But there is no such special duty in hand, or performance, when the name Jesus is mentioned: upon which this gesture of bowing should be rounded, but only the duties of hearing and attending the Word of God, whereunto all other gestures of standing, or sitting, are much more convenient, and have approbation from the Scriptures. The former of standing, Nehe 8.5. Mat. 13.2. and elsewhere: the latter of sitting, Ezek. 20.1. & 33.31. Mar. 3.34. etc. So that to enjoin bowing still upon the pronunciation of the name Jesus, in the midst of the Service, whether it be in the hearing of a Chapter, or Gospel read, wherein those other gestures of standing, or sitting, are by the same Authority allowed: besides that, it wants a special foundation to build it upon; it dissolves (for the time) those other gestures which the Scriptures allow, substituting another in their stead unknown to them: and further it condemns that which it allows, by censuring men for sitting, or standing, then when they have allowed both as lawful.   

ARGUMENT. 5.  
THhat which (at the best) is a compound worship, to the framing and making up whereof there is a concurrence, partly of the will of God, partly of the will and wisdom of men, is an unlawful worship, especially when that which is from man is the form spirit and life of the worship: and that which is from God is but the material and less principal part of it. But such is this worship of bowing, etc. Ergo  
The Major I conceive needs no relief from any truth clearer than itself.  
The Minor is thus proved. If only the outward act, the bowing of the body be from God: but the bowing of it at such a time, and upon such an occasion, be from Man, than it is a compound worship, yea and that which is formal and principal in it is from Man, and only that which is weak and less regarded is from God. But the antecedent is true, (namely) that the bowing of the body only is from God: but the bowing at such a time, and upon such an occasion is from Man. Therefore the consequence or Counclusion is true also, viz. That that worship is a mixed and compound worship, and that which is principal and most esteemed from Man, and only the neglected and less principal part of it from God: the Consequence is evident in both the parts and members of it.  
1. That which hath a plurality and diversity of ingredients in it, must needs be a thing compounded. And secondly, for the latter part of it, that which is from God (if any thing at all be in it from him (viz. the bowing of the body is but the material, and less principal part of it: but that which is from Man, namely to do it at such a time, and upon such an occasion, is the formal and principal part of it, appears thus: Because let the Body be bowed never so diligently and frequently, upon the mention of all other names of Christ, as Lord, Saviour, &c yet this is not regarded, no more than a dead carcase when the life is departed from it; nor taken for the worship commanded. Therefore that which gives the life and essence to it, is not that which makes it an act of adoration: neither is it the exhibiting of it, to the person for whom it is claimed (as pretence is made) but it is the exhibition of it, sub tali signo, upon such a sound. This is that which gives it the special nature, and makes it to b● accepted and acknowledged for the worship commanded. Therefore this is the life and soul, and all in all of this worship.  
Now for the Minor Proposition. That this Circumstance or point in it, that it should and must be given precisely at such a time, is purely from man and not from God, hath sufficiently been demonstrated already; and the Argument that evinceth it, beyond all contradiction, is soon repeated▪ there is not the least intimation from God at all in the Scripture that any thing more should be done in this kind too, or upon the name jesus, then to any other name or title, whether of God or of Christ. Therefore to found an act of worship upon the mention or sound of the name jesus is purely and absolutely from Man, and not from God.   

ARGUMENT. 6.  
IT is a thing unlawful to lay a stumbling block in the way of the weak or blind. Then it is unlawful to require such worship, at the mention or sound of the name jesus, or to countenance any such Command. But this is simply unlawful, Levit. 19.14. Ergo.  
The Consequence willbe reduced to a lightsome truth by reasoning thus, to enjoin any worship of God, in such away or upon such terms, whereby the weak and simple (yea and the wiser also) may easily be ensnared, drawn and provoked, to commit Idolatry, at least to commit absurdity, and give divine worship, to that which is not such, is an unlawful injunction, and it is sin to countenance it. But that injunction to bow at the name of jesus, is such an injunction, Ergo etc.  
The Major I conceive is rich in evidence of clear truth.  
The Minor likewise is not of any difficult proof, viz. that the injunction and practice of bowing, is in the nature of it apt to misled the simple, either into Idolatry, or absurdity. That which directly occasions men to worship those who were but mere men, or to bow upon the mention of their Names, directly and in the nature of it, leads men either to commit Idolatry, or (in the best interpretation) a gross absurdity in the service of God. But this Command and practice of b●wing at the name Jesus, directly tends to one or both of these. Ergo▪  
The Minor is clear because the name jesus is a name common to others, besides the Lord Jesus, as to Josua, who is called Jesus, Heb. 4 8. And jesus the Son of Syrach: and Bar-Iesus a Conjurer, Acts 13.6. Now how easy it is for the simple to mistake one person for another, that goeth in the same name with him, without any distinction or note of difference in the sound, none can be ignorant of.   

ARGUMENT. 7.  
NO outward Ceremony or act of worship that tends to the prejudice, and interruption of the worship and service of God, which is more inward and spiritual is to be received and yielded unto. But such is the practice of bowing at the name of Jesus. Ergo.  
The Major Proposition is evident: because duties of inferior nature and consequence, when greater are in place, and cannot be performed in their due manner; when these are thrust upon them, are no duties in such a case: but all their obligatory virtue and power is suspended for that time.  
And for the other Proposition, that bowing at the name of jesus is such a worship, or outward act, that cannot stand with the due performance of that which is greater, and more spiritual, it is clearly demonstrable from hence: Because attentive hearing and minding the Word of God, either read or preached, is such a duty, that cannot but be interrupted, and suffer distraction and diversion of the mind, if the other duty of bowing be attended also. The mind of man finds a marvellous difficulty and insufficiency in itself, to give that diligent and deep intention to the Word of God, which belongs to it, when it hath its full strength entire, and unbroken with any other collateral occasions, when it is in the greatest freedom that may be from all other thoughts. Ergo, If it shallbe burdened in the time of hearing with the care and purpose of bowing, when such a word or sound comes forth, this cannot but much break and weaken the intention of it.  
If it be said: But there is no necessity of thinking of bowing till the time come, and the name be in the Eare.  
I Answer, he that really and seriously intends to bow when the sound comes, can hardly forbear thinking of it again and again before hand, and will have much ado to keep the sound out of his imagination, before it comes at his Eare. Let any man make a narrow experiment in himself, and ingenuously confess what he finds, I make no doubt but his confession hath been already drawn to his hands in this Argument.   

ARGUMENT. 8.  
THat worship which intends to exalt one name of God, or of Christ before others; and to bring all the rest into contempt, is at no hand to be condescended unto. But such is this bowing worship at the name of Jesus, it tends to magnify one name of Christ, with the disparagement of all the rest. Ergo.  
The Major I take for granted: Because whatsoever reflects prejudice upon any of the great and sacred names and titles of God upon any pretence whatsoever, is not to be endured.  
The Minor is thus confirmed, because this name only being judged a fit medium of conveying a special honour, or service to Christ: and others not thought worthy of such an office or employment, this must needs turn to a reproach unto them that they shall all be defective this way in comparison of this one.  
Neither is it any part of satisfaction to say, That it is not denied unto the rest, men may do the same reverence upon the mention of any other name.  
To this I Answer, That it manifestly argues a comparative contempt, when there is honour and reverence, settled upon one by a Law, and men set at liberty to deal with the rest, as they please: It is a sign that the Lawmakers take not much care what becomes of the rest, so the name they have fancied may be exalted, that their fancy likewise may be exalted with it.  
Secondly, If this knee-service were done upon the mention of every name or title of Christ besides, sometimes it might so fall out, (viz.) when such names come, many, or very oft together, that it may make the body of the Service ridiculous, and a good part of it a little better than a mere distraction. Ergo, The liberty that is left to men in this case, doth not ease the business at all: because if it be taken in the way, by which it is intended that the other names of Christ shallbe brought to an equality of honour with that of jesus; the truth is it willbe so fare from doing this, that it will bring them altogether, one and other without exception into contempt.   

ARGUMENT. 9  
THat worship of Christ which reflects disparagement upon the other two persons, as though they were inferior to him, and worthy of less honour is at no hand to be allowed.  
But this worship is such a worship, enjoined only to the second person.  
It is true, God hath given all the honour and dignity unto Christ, whereof he now stands poffessed, as Mediator, to this end, that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father, Io. 5.23. but that men should honour him above the Father, or with any such worship wherewith the Father is not honoured: there is no Scripture will bear it, nor the analogy of Faith endure it.  
If it be replied and said: That the same honour may be exhibited to the other persons, when men will, they are not restrained in this case.  
To this I Answer (in effect as before) this liberty left unto men doth no way justify the command, by which the special and peculiar worship to the second Person is enjoined; the other two Persons being passed over, it provides no such worship, either for the Father, or for the Holy-Ghost; it gives men liberty aswell to deprive them of it, as to refer it unto them.  
Neither is it of any greater value to say and pretend, That in bowing to Christ we bow to the whole Trinity in him, and that it is no more a disparagement to the other Persons to refer a special honour upon Christ (so they be not excluded in it) then for a man to direct his prayers unto any one of the Persons alone, which is no disparagement or neglect of the other, if he do not exclude them? though he addresseth himself actually to one only in prayer.  
To this the reply is, That the case is altogether unlike, because first, though it be lawful at any time to direct a man's prayer to any one of the three Persons (but supposing the other two not excluded, though they be not actually intended) yet is there strict provision made in the Scripture, and command given for the same divine worship, to be exhibited to them all, whereas the worship of bowing is by the Commandment settled only upon the second Person, and not so much as the least mention made of either of the other, as having any right to communicate in the same worship with him.  
Secondly, a man directing his prayers at one time, to one of the Persons in particular, may at another time direct it to another, and the third time to a third; and so the equality of the Persons is fully acknowledged. But in the command, and tender of this knee-worship, a man is sent with it only to the Son; neither will it serve or be accepted to tender this honour to the Son, in the Father, or in the Holy-Ghost (as in prayer it is accepted with God) but it will suffice in this knee-worship, that the Father and Holy Ghost be worshipped in the Son; yea if they be not worshipped, it will serve also: by which it appears evidently, that there is a wide difference between the one and the other.  
Thirdly, if the Scripture had limited, or restrained the duty or worship of prayer, to one of the Persons only limited, I mean in such a sense that it had mentioned only this one Person, as capable of this worship, and had given no intimation of the like capacity in the other two (though it had not expressly excepted against them in this behalf) it is evident, that it had established, or at least strongly intimated an inequality between the Persons, and given a pre-eminence to the one above the other two. This is the very case of this Precept for bowing at the Name jesus, there is a full establishment of a capacity of this worship in the second Person: but there is not the least intimation given of the like capacity in either of the other. Ergo, It directly tends to set up a conceit of an unequality between the persons in the minds of men, and therefore it is not to be assented unto.   

ARGUMENT 10.  
NO outward worship or service of God, that can have no other reasonable end, but only to entrap and ensnare the faithful servants of God, is not to be endured: But such is this bowing worship. Ergo.  
But if it be here excepted and said, It serves to testify the inward reverence of the heart, and the frame of the soul how it stands affected to the Lord jesus; and what can be a more real end.  
First, to this I Answer, it is commanded to be done, whether the heart be inwardly 〈◊〉 to God or no▪ so that if that be the intent of it, to express the inward reverence of the soul to Christ: Then is the commanding of it a snare unto men, to entangle them with the sign of hypocrisy, because it is not in any man's power to have his heart inw●rly affected when he pleaseth. But the command of bowing, enjoins him to the outward ●orship, whether he find his heart inwardly affected yea or no Now to compel a man to make profession of some good which is not in truth in him, what is this but to command dissimulation: and for the greatest part of those that are most taken with, and most pliable to this posture, it is more than aparent, that for any inward soul reverence to Christ, they have little to do with it: So that to command all without exception to do it, there is no interpretation to salve it, but that it is to command the greatest part of those to whom it is enjoined to profess that outwardly, which they are not within, which in plain speaking is gross dissimulation.  
2. If it be the proper end and intent of this Ceremonial worship, to testify the inward reverence of the soul to Christ, then should it rather be commanded to be done at such times indefinitely, when a man finds the impression of such a reverence upon his spirit; and not determinately when ever he hears the sound of the Name jesus, Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh: and so it is fittest for all the body to speak, and not when the heart is empty.  
3. If a definite time be fit to he appointed, when men shall bow their bodies to Christ, in token of their inward reverence, it should rather be when some of those great things he hath done for us were mentioned, then, when only this bare name is recited: because there is not so much in the bare Name, which is scarcely herd to affect the heart towards him, as when that goodness and mercy which is seen in that great salvation he hath purchased for us, is displayed before our eyes.  
4. Lastly, it is a thing altogether unreasonable, when things that are stronger, and more spiritual are in place, especially when that which is a more full, and more genuine exercise must give place for a time, to make way for that which is inferior to it.  
But reverence in attention to the Word of God and Christ is doubtless a greater and fuller exercise, and testimony of greater inward reverence of the heart, then bowing at the name of jesus is: The Sould●ers that put him to death bowed the knee to him in derision: but for outward reverence in hearing the Scriptures, though it may be taken up by those that have no true love to God, or his Word, yet God himself gives testimony of it, as a seemly behaviour well becoming his people, Ezek. 32. Ergo, For a man to break off and interrupt a more solemn exercise to Christ, which reverend 〈…〉 in a reverend attention to his Word, whether it be sitting, or standing, only to introduce a heterogenity, & less pertinent exercise in bowing, I conceive is not that reasonable service of God, which the Scriptures call for, and require at every man's hands.   

ARGUMENT. 11.  
THat worship which neither the Law of God nor the Law of Man, nor the Church whereof we are members, imposes; ought not to be assented unto, or entertained. But such is this bowing it is neither commanded in this case by the Law of God, neither is there any Canon, or Constitution of the Church. Ergo, etc.  
The Major is without exception.  
As for the Minor, That this worship is not commanded by the Law of God, it hath been sufficiently declared already. For the latter member of it (that it is not commanded by any canon or Constitution of the Church, may thus appear, if not by the 18. Canon, than not at all. But that it is not commanded by the 18. Canon, These considerations make it every whit as much, if not more then) probable.  
1. That worship or reverence here advised or called for, is only such a worship or reverence as is due, for that is the first and principal qualification of it, by which the other two, (us and all) must be interpreted. Now the rule in Law is, That is due which is required by the Law of God. But such reverence or worship of Christ, which the Law of God doth not require, is not that worship which the Canon adviseth unto. But now as concerning the bowing worship or reverence in this case, it hath been often proved, to have been no where required by the Law of God.  
If it be Objected, That the word due may have reference to some former Law or Constituteon of the Church, aswell as to the Law of God, in respect whereof it may be called due.  
I Answer. First, that this being left doubtful, and undetermined in the Canon, whether it be such a worship as is due by the Law of God, or by the Law of the Church, than the interpretation of the Canon, is not to be left too or made by any one man or more: but by a Convocation of the Clergy, under the broad Seal, as is expressly enjoined by his Majesty's Declaration, prefixed before the last Impression, in the Book of the (39) Articles of Religion. (Ergo) as yet till the Canon be made to speak more plain by this Authority, there is no Authority sufficiently peremptory to impose any such worship, by virtue of the Canon.  
But Secondly, suppose it be granted that the word due, hath, or may have reference to some former Constitution of the Church; yet till such a Canon be produced, which hitherto hath not been, neither ever will, or can be, where this reverence of bowing the body or knee, precisely, or determinately is enjoined; till than there is nothing to be had out of the Canon for bowing.  
2. That reverence to Christ the Canon adviseth unto, is only such a reverence as hath been accustomed. Now to what custom this word referreth there is nothing determined of it, it ●s not in any probability but that it is either to the Church of God in general, or to the custom of the Church of God in England; as for what hath been accustomed in the Church malignant, of Popery I presume, the Canon looks not after it. Now that it hath neither been the Custom of the Church Catholic; nor the custom of the Church of England to bow still at the name of jesus: I know no Authentic Author that can testify; as for the practice of some particular, either place, or person, it will not amount to make that which is properly called a Custom.  
3. But if the words of the Canon (Due, lowly, and Customed) be understood, of any humble deportment, and reverend Composure of the outward man, in the hearing of the word of Christ; then will the sense be more expedient and clear, than willbe found in any other interpretation; for suah a reverence is, (first) apparently Due, from the Word of God, and his Law, and the Law of the Church. And (Secondly) it is, lowly, the body every way framed to the humble deportment of the soul. (Thirdly) such a reverence hath been still accustomed, and is still the custom of all the true Servants of God, both in England and elsewhere: those Three qualifications of (Due, Lowly, and Reverend) will never be made so really, and so generally into the worship of bowing, as they do to that reverend and humble attention of hearing the word of God, and this is most pliable to the meaning of the Canon.  
4 Nothing is enjoined in this Canon, that is not prescribed nor mentioned in the Book of Common Prayer: and it is evident from hence, because in the Act of Conformity prefixed, before the Book, if there be any other Ceremony in the service of God, it is prohibited under the penalty: but for the Ceremony of bowing at the name of jesus, the Book of Common Prayer no where mentions. (Ergo) it is not likely to be enjoined, or if that be granted, than the Book of Common Prayer will fall heavy upon him, that shall observe the Canon: on the other side, the Canon will condemn him that shall observe the Book of Common Prayer.  
5. His Majesty's special Command and pleasure is in the former Declaration, that the literal and Grammatical sense shall still be taken, and no other; But now if the Canon have no other Midwife, but the literal and Grammatical sense, it will never be delivered of this bowing worship, at the name of jesus. If the canon were exactly translated, into all languages, and suit made to the best Grammarians of all Nations, to give the literal sense of it, it is not to be conceived, that any one of them would ever find, that bowing the body at the sound of the name jesus, would ever to be meant by it.   
FINIS.