〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. OR, A TRIAL OF THE COUNTERSCARP, Made 1642.  
In Answer to a scandalous Pamphlet, Entitled, A Treatise against superstitious jesu-worship: Written by Mascall Giles, Vicar of Ditcheling in Sussex.  
Wherein are discovered his Sophisms: and the holy Mother our Church is cleared of all the slanders which he hath laid on her▪  
By the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  CANTICLES 1.2. 
Thy Name is as an Ointment poured forth: therefore the Virgins love thee.  
Vtilitas Proximo: Gloria Deo.  
LONDON: Printed by Thomas Purslow, for Andrew Crook, at the Green-Dragon in St. Paul's▪ Churchyard. 1643.   

To The WORSHIPFUL WALTER DOBELL Esquire; my respected Brother.  
SIR,  
WHat you desired is done. I examined, and in ten days of August last Answered the Treatise against Superstitious Jesu-Worship. Encouraged, not altered since, it's now come the King's Highway unto you. Not to flatter, it knows no sinister end; nor to insinuate, it feels no disjunction. As you are religious, a Gentleman, and a Scholar, value it in no relation to me. I shall not then lose by you, nor you by my gains. Grant my request, and call the work yours. To be yours is enough mine. Deny this and me  
The faithful Observer of your worth THO. BARTON. Decemb. 31. 1642.   

Animadversions to my Reader, on Mascall Giles Epistle unto his.  
Where I meet with a Gentleman, or a Scholar, I dare be bold: and if I must Apologise, it shall be carelessly short. Though I have been in Aristippus' School, I gained not his Art. My pen never added to my Purse. And if I seen to follow Zeno, 'twas over-galled ink forced me to acerbate mine. That's all. My Fr●ends I doubt not, the enemy is in the field, and I am one in Front. But what he feared I saw not; he's wheeled about, and falls foul on a Canon. How he can get off you shall see, and when he retreats, He charge him home.  
Whom there he fights against are double fortified, with the Text, and with the Church: the one commands, the other presseth the performance. I perceive no indifferency, if the great Challenger can show any, I will be set at his will.  
A plain injunction I find by the Letter of the Text, an outward duty too, and both so in the sense of the Church. Enough thi● to make his disobedience to God, and God's Ordinance, inexcusable,  
A ceremony, who can tell any thing, knows it to be: but to be or not to be any thing, I know not who can tell. If many hold it principally by humane institution, in their submission they keep the divine precept. Without this Thrasos lists I hear of none that leave or take.  
Two sorts he describes, the first I am in, the second he's upon, Upon whom he is, their ground is the Text and the Canon: the Text to warrant, the Canon to bind.  
This jesu-mastix calls that ridiculous. I say 'tis not. For if the Text do but warrant, it cannot bind. If it warrant, the Canon is in force; because the Church hath authority in, not against, nor beside the Analogy of the truth.  
The truth then for its dignity, holding divers senses, and none repugnant, the same may appear a command to some, to others a warrant, and yet neither be wrong, though both reach not home.  
A command is more than a warrant, a warrant is not against a command, and he that is not against, is with us: but if the Church see the Command, which every one doth not, her authority makes that a Command to them, to whom it seemed a bare warrant,  
There is no denying this, without denying the first precept of the second Table, Yet she is not above the Scripture, but seethe that a duty be not lost, Where two ways go to the right, she taketh care that we miss not both,  
The danger is, if she should inhibit what's a command to me, and a warrant to another, If she do, obeying God's command, I will endure her mulct. Whom I cannot inform let him look to himself. As I will oppose contempt, I shall never justify ignorance, nor negligence.  
His comparison of the Canon and order, is a gin for a gull, a daring anticipation, and Fathers that on the house of Commons, which was never begot in the Christian World. Wilful blindness shall never make me graceless to my mother.  
The Epistolers descant on the Canon, remembers thee of, and confutes the 14 scandalous lines in his dedication.  
When the Lord jesus shall be mentioned, due & lowly reverence shall be done by all persons, are the words of the Canon, he confesseth: and I trow due and lowly reverence is neither superstition, nor innovation: doth neither pester the Church, nor grieve the well-affected: Is neither forbidden by any religious order, nor upheld by pride and shame: Is no malignant principle, nor polluteth the people's judgements; is not more specious than religious; no monster of many heads; no point of popery; no producer of dangerous conclusions, nor contrary to the Text.  
Beware Reader! the mind is wicked, that runs at his riot. I had rather err with the Church, then be singular against the truth: But err I cannot, whilst the Canon is made good in the Text, and not the Text inferior by the Canon.  
What occasioned him to publish his Treatise, if ambition did not? For the particulars he recounts viz. the Archbishops urging the Canon; Divines preaching damnation to the wilful refusers, might have caused him to distrust himself.  
To the rest: That his Parishioners staggered, think it was upon his own doctrine. That he found empty stuff in the upholders of our practice, impute to his false judgement. That it hath no foundation on the Text, attribute to his will. That he was styled Factious and Schismatical, hold it justly, and his own glory. That he received muddy teasons of some, and railing above measure, deem the fairest gloss on himself. That we have no Scripture for our opinion, bid him by't his tongue for the report.  
Against whom he maliciously inveighs, if I mind the same Gentleman, he is a very religious, reverend, learned, discreet, temperate, and orthodox divine.  
If he accounted this Challengers arguments light, I tell thee, they are but froth. If he would not admit one of his Parishioners to the conference, 'twas his wisdom because the opponent is exceeding heady. If he denied some other demands, I know his worth such that he might not yield to them without disparagement to himself.  
But that he appeared not in this practice before his Grace of Canterbury's time, and that he studied more hours in the question, than others had done minutes, are so suitable to Mascall Gyles Chip's, that I dare say they came from his own block.  
To satisfy thee throughly, the worthy Theologue hath endured such obloquy from this malign one that amends cannot be made him without some public recantation. Yet I hope to beg his pardon: because in the marginal notes of his Epistle he is more wild than wily:  
At last he's returned where he began. And now Buccae noscenda est mensura suae, the wide of his mouth shallbe known. His clawing at first, that my opinion is not so absurd, nor so gross, at the last, as the former, I will mind when my back wants rubbing.  
'Tis confessed that four Syllogisms I received, and be it known that the answer I promised he had. The sum whereof is this. The Syllogisms were false in form and matter, their proofs very weak, fallacious, inconsistent, and much tending to Arrianisme. His note of no reason, and all railing is expunged thus. If he can show me any irrational, or railing Line under my hand I will not only pardon his ill tongue, but give it leave to rail at me ever.  
The reader by that which follows may judge whether I gave a boast beyond the Victory; whether great reproaches necessitated him to challenge the Field, clear himself, and try the Valour of our Kind; whether it be possible for his Forces to help them that stagger and are miss, whether he prove that bowing at the Name of jesus hath no command, no not the least warrant from Phil. 2.9.10. Whether answer be not made to the whole, and grounded on the Scriptures; read and forbear if thou canst to deem him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, one no less unwise than vain▪ Put on, and let no Errata frighten. Correct them with thy Pen as thou goest. Thy pains shall be compensed in mine,  
T. B.   

AN ANSWER To A TREATISE Against SUPERSTITIOUS JESU-WORSHIP.  



A Treatise against Superstitious JESU-WORSHIP.   

Answer.  
IN the Title of your Book is no small piece of Antichristianisme. Our honouring of Jesus, is Superstitious; that's it: for jesus is the genitive, and cannot there be merely nominal in any case. Indeed the Word Superstitious makes it specious; but what if it appear that the superstition you mean, is an Euthusiasme of Confessor Prynne, or Father Burton, etc. fathered on us by their pupil Giles? Will you recant? or dare you undergo their forfeiture? If you will not the one, I can spare you my Voice to further you in the other; and the rather, because I know that contrary to your own knowledge, you charge us with syllabicall worship: for myself have often in the presence of many Divines, Gentlemen, and others, told you, that we take not the Name of Jesus at Phil. 2.10. without the sense.    


THis Treatise I divide into two parts. In the first pa●t the true sense of the Text is laid open, and from thence sundry Arguments are raised against bowing at the Name jesus.  
In the second part are answers to the pretended Reasons for that opinion.  
PART I.  
Four things are necessary here to be sifted and cleared.  
First, What is meant by the high exalted Name of Christ, signified in these words; Name above.  
Secondly, What is meant by the Names subjected to this highest Name signified in these words; Every Name.  
Thirdly, What is meant by these words; Every knee shall bow, and, Every tongue shall confess.  
Fourthly, What is meant by those wo●ds; In the Name of jesus.   

Answer.  
In the division and parts of your Pamphlet, you undertake to set forth more than you lay open, the true sense of the Text: Multa videntur quae non sunt, seeming to sift, you clear nothing; nay, like the Sieve, holding the corpse, you let go the sine, and that you so do, shall first be seen in your first Section.    

SECTION I. Wherein it is to be considered what is meant by the exalted Name of Christ, signified in these words, N●me above.  
BY Name above every Name, 
Name above ●ry Name, ●at it is not.  cannot be meant a bare proper Name, for these reasons.  
Answer.  
In your Epistle to the Reader, I found a great distemper in your animal parts: at the very entrance of this Section. I see the disease, Melancholy it, and such as tends 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Symptom is this: what you suppose to be, must be as you suppose. You think it, therefore we say it. Were you compos mentis, and would you put this lie upon us in Print? viz. That we jesu-worshippers divest the name above every Name unto the bare elements only of Letters and syllables.  
Who reads your first line knows your aim, and every one in our practice can remember you of Ignorantia elenchi; in the whole section, and throughout your book you are ignorant of, or would beg the Question.  
The question is not, whether the Name above every Name be a naked Name; but whether the Name above every Name be the Name of jesus? or if you will, whether the Name jesus in sensu, not in elementis only, be the Name above every Name?  
Your Question we hold negatively, affirmatively ours: Against your own you go, and so do we, but not by the recommendation of your Arguments.  


First, It is no way necessary so to understand it, because (Name) is not generally, or for the most part so taken in Scripture, but in other senses▪  
Secondly, Because this phrase (a great Name made or given) is never taken in Scripture for a bare proper Name.  
Thirdly, Because this phrase (Name above another made or given) is never taken in Scripture for a bare proper Name, above another such Name.   

Answer.  
Your first is nothing; and your reason as little. You say 'tis no way necessary so to understand it; because N●me is not generally so taken. We affirm it cannot be so taken: because a Name without a thing is nothing: the second notion subsists not, save in the first: the Name of jesus is not his without him.  
Your second and third be coincident and included in the first.    

Fourthly, It is not agreeable to the analogy of the Text, so to understand it: My reason is this, because the subjected Name in the Text, must have of necessity, a correspondent Relation to Christ's advanced Name, otherwise the sense cannot be Logical. If then the high advanced Name of Christ in the Text be a proper Name, it will follow necessarily, that all the subjected Names must be proper Names also. Yea themselves refer the Name Jesus, to divine Names, preferring it before the Titles, Christ, Son of God, Jehovah, etc. And if it be so understood, though the sense be Logical, yet is it not sound, for this it will be: The Name jesus is a greater Name than the Name Christ, jehovah; and so consequently above the Name F●ther, or Holy Ghost; above the Names of men, as john, Thomas, Henry, and so above the Names of all creatures and things, which will make a most absurd sense, which yet cannot be avoided upon these men's grounds. Again, seeing it is evident, that all the subjected Names in the Text, must bow to the Name above every Name, If the said Name be understood of a proper Name, they not excepting divine names, the sense will be this: The names of Angels and Devils, the n●mes of all things and creatures, the names of men, as Richard, Thomas, William, yea, divine Titles, as Lord, Christ, jehovah, must bow to the Name of jesus; and how senseless will this be? Seeing then, that the Names subjected to he Name above every Name, are not the Names of creatures, & things sub●e●ted (for they are referred in the Text to knees, of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, not to Names) but the powers of things and creatures subjected, as I shall demonstrate hereafter. Then cannot the Name above them all be a proper name; for then the sense will be this: The Nam● jesus hath dominion over every thing and creature, and every thing and creature must bow knees to the Name Jesus, which will be ridiculous. L●stly, seeing the names subjected to the Name above every Name, are meant the powers and virtues of things and creatures, they excepting not divine Names, they must understand it also of the power of God, than the sense will be this: The Name jesus is above God, and that God himself must bow knees to the name jesus, which sense will be horrid and blasphemous.  

Answer.  
Here's much a do and nothing done; the reason is, your Logic holds no sense, a plain non sequitur at first, and this it. If the high advanced Name in the Text be a proper Name, it will follow necessarily that all subjected names must be proper N●mes also; prove the consequence if you ca●: till you do, I tell you, that if you understand by a proper Name, as before, a Name separated from the sense, your inference, a non existente, is most absurd: but if you mind the Name in the sense of the Name, be it the highest, not of proper only, but of common also: above Muscall and Giles, etc. above all below, all above, I except not, no not I, the Name of God. See my Antiteichisma, pag. 18, and there your inferences in this place will appear, tanquam puerorum naenia, or like any thing that may please children.  
How the Name of jesus is, and why exalted, shall come at your next sixthly, and afterward often. What is intimated by every Name under supper, in the second section, and as occasion is offered in the progress.  
To your lastly, I say every one knows we are no Anthropomorphites, and if any would know whence your horrid blasphemous conceit of Gods bowing knees to the Name jesus proceeds, Physicians will teach them, that when the humours of the brain are over servant, by their agitation, mens in falsa traducitur,    


Secondly, If it were necessary to understand (Name above every Name) for a Name or Title, yet may it not be understood of the Name or Title jesus; for these Reasons.  
First, The word (jesus) doth no where in the whole new Testament signify the bare name jesus, but only then when it was promised by the Angel at Christ's Conception, Mat. 1.21. and given unto him at his Circumcision, Luke, 2.21. where necessarily it must so signify.   

Answer.  
At your concessum in this second place, the six reasons have not web enough to entangle a fly; so insufficient they, that your negative proposition will no more be, then be supported by your word.  
The first is, the word jesus doth no where in the whole new Testament signify the bare name Jesus, therefore Name above every name, as a bare name, may not be understood of the Name jesus, as a bare Name.  
Here is stuff for an Antagonist; who ever conceived save you▪ that the word Jesus doth signify the word Jesus? and do you in earnest affirm i● at Mat. 1.21, Lu. 2.21. I never read it so there, nor elsewhere. But if this might be granted, why should not the Name above every Name be spoken of Jesus? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name is jehovah in the old, and may not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Name above every Name be Jesus in the n●w? look again, and you shall often find a Pariphrasis of that Name, and Name often used for Jesus, Act. 5.41.    

Secondly, This phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Name of jesus, is never, taken in all the New Testament (where only it is used) for the name jesus, or any other titles of Christ, but in others senses. If any shall think, that it is meant of the name jesus in this place, making th● word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the Dative case, and to agree in opposition with the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because there is no Article before it; I answer, in sundry places of the New Testament the self same phrase is used without an Article, and is never put in the Dative case, but always in the Genitive, and doth no where denote the ba●e nam● jesus; as in these places amongst others. Act. 2.38. Act. 16, 18. Act. 4.10. Col. 3.17.  

Answer.  
Secondly, (this phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Name, rather the Name, of Jesus is never taken in the New Testament for the Name Jesus) that is, the Name in the sense, if I understand you, is not without the sense. Therefore Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare Name.  
If our Worship were thus metaphysical, could any Logician overthrow it with this argument? Infer the Enthymeme, and when I am such a Word-worshipper you shall convert. Here's no more required of me till you have rendered me more reason.  
To your next supposition (if any shall think that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you would say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is meant of the Name Jesus by apposition, because no Article is prefixed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) I answer; if I should say so, all your skill in Grammar cannot disprove it; but the phrase being usual, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not prefixed, 'tis argument enough to me, that it must be the genitive. The genitive it shall be, and so much the stronger against you. For the genitive being the first intention, the dative cannot be the same: as in your cited places, Act. 2.38. etc.    

Thirdly, The Name above every Name, is incommunicable to any creature, being the only prerogative of the Son of God: but the name jesus was communicated to others, as to joshuah, which is the same Name with jesus, Heb. 4.8. etc. Therefore it is not sound what bishop 
* Sermon on Phil, 2.9.10.  Andrew's, and Master 
* justification of vowing, pag, 49,  Page from him do affirm, that the Name jesus is incommunicable, which though it were given by men, yet they say, it was not given of God, who appointed none this Name save jesus Christ, and therefore they say that it is greater than the Name Christ, because many were called the Lords Christ's by Gods own allowance, as Kings and Prophets. For to this I answer: The Name jesus was not given to some at least without a special providence of God, as to joshuah, who was a great Saviour, and type of Christ. Thus hath learned Vrsinus 
* Catechis. pag. 196. , Atqui inquis Parentes joshuae, etc. But thou wilt say, saith he, that the Parents of joshua when they gave him this Name, could not imagine, that God would deliver Israel by him: He answers, At Deus scivit & voluntatem corum direxit: But God knew it and directed their will. And some are no more called the Lords Christ's, than others are called the Lord's Saviour's, as Neh. 9.27. These Saviour's there are called the Lords gifts, which is all one as if it had been said, the Lord's Saviour's. And whereas the name jesus was a common name to be called by, generally allowed, and never reprehended in any: But for the Name Christ, howsoever some were called the Lords Christ's, as Types of Christ, yet no man might take the Name Christ as an ordinary Name to be called by without horrible blasphemy, Mat 24.23.24.  

Answer.  
Thirdly, The Name above every Name, is incommunicable. Therefore Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of the Name jesus, as a bare Name. And your reason is because the Name jesus was communicated to others, as to joshuah. Heb. 4.8.  
This is as the worst, and may do you some pleasure, when you have learned of Confessor Prinne, or Father Burton that the Name Jesus, which is Jesus his Name at Phil. 2. is attributed to another. But whither will not impudence? When ignorance may challenge such religious, and learned men, as Bishop Andrew's, and D. Page, Atheism is at hand. Have you forgot, or did you never read Chilo's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heed it now, 
juvenal. Sat. 11.  and say with the Poet, e caelo descendit. Had you published your Pamphlet under the hands of ten learned Divines, as you promised, I would have exceeded myself in the vindication of that honour, which can never be at loss by your Pen. What there they affirm I avoid, and you may see how far in my Antiteichis. pag. 22.23. I will only look upon your answer, and let the world view the extent of your folly.  
Bishop Andrews, and D. Page say, the Name Christ is communicated by him to others, namely to Princes: So is not Jesus. That's one reason of divers.  
In repelling this you have overturned yourself. (Some are no more called the Lords Christ's, than others the Lord's Saviour's; therefore the Name Jesus is communicated.) 'tis true that God in his great mercies gave the Israelites Saviour's; Neh. 9.27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Salvatores, yet not one of them to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Jesus is a Saviour. And if there be any surreptitious taking, 'tis no communication of it. Your quotation of Vrsinus is not ad idem, and you may learn of others, that Joshuah received that Name by Moses, not of his parents.  
But may no man bear the Name Christ, as a Name ordinarily to be called by, without blasphemy? Is this your tenet, and the way to super-exalt the Name Christ? What think you then of Christopher? Why do you confess that Kings are Christ's? Nay are we not all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and denominated Christians? Do they and we blaspheme, because we, and they be so called? Mat. 24.23.24. inhibits not the usurpation in that sense, but our impropriation of it in the highest.    

Fourthly, Because the Name above every Name was given to our Saviour at his exaltation, according to the plain words of the Text. But the Name jesus was given to him in the beginning of his humiliation. To answer here, that give signifieth to advance, I reply, it is not agreeable to the sense of this word in o●her Scriptures, and it mars the phrase and sense of the Text here, as I shall hereafter demonstrate.  

Answer.  
Fourthly, This Name Jesus, was given to him in the beginning of his humiliation. Therefore the Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare Name.  
This is the fourth inconsequence, and answered in my Antiti. pag. 13. 14. 15. Where you may know that the Name is the same before and after. What you promise here to demonstrate hereafter, shall be answered then.    

Fifthly, Because jesus was advanced after his Resurrection to be Lord and Christ, Act. 2.36. And it is considerable that the Evangelists do usually call him by the Name jesus, only in the time of his humiliation. But in the Epistles of the Apostles, He is most commonly called Ch●ist, not near so often jesus: And when he is called jesus, it is very commonly with the addition of Lord, or Christ, as Lord jesus, or jesus Christ, or both together, the Lord jesus Christ, An argument, that Lord, and Christ, be Titles of his honour, and so cannot be less eminent than the Name jesus.  

Answer.  
Fifthly, jesus was advanced after his resurrection to be Lord and Christ, Act. 2.36. Therefore the Name above every Name, as a bare Name, may not be understood of Jesus, as a bare Name.  
This and the preceding consequence smell of Arrianisme. As if Jesus were not before, what he was declared to be after the resurrection, Lord and Christ.  
That which is so considerable with you, as the reason, viz. that the Evangelists do usually call him by the Name Jesus only in the time of his humiliation, is more than inconsiderate y ven●ed by you. Because there he is more often called by the N●m● Jesus, than any other Name. After his resurrection, in the 4. Eva●g lists, and in the first of the Acts, you shall find Jesus forty five times, and Christ but twice.  
Your second observatum, that in the Epistles he is most commonly styled Christ, is nothing, unless you had said Christ Sejunctim, and not Jesus. But that you cannot, yet if you could, and the first and second were true, you might infer no more, then that Jesus who once was decried, is now cried up Lord and Christ.    

Sixthly, It is against the Scriptures to prefer the Name jesus above other divine Titles, because God in subjecting all things to Christ, did yet except himself, 1 Cor. 15.27. And when the Scriptures do enter into particulars, Christ's Name is specified to be advanced only above created Names, as above Angels, 1 Pet. 3.21. above Kings, Psal. 87.27. above Prophets, Heb. 3.3. above Priests, Heb. Chapters 7, 8, 9, 10. above all other creatures and things, Heb. 2.8. His name is never preferred a●ove God's Name.  

Answer.  
Sixtly it is against the Scripture, to prefer the Name jesus above other divine Titles: therefore the name above every Name as a bare Name, may not be understood of jesus as a bare Name: your medium to uphold the antecedent is, that God in subiecting all things to Christ, did yet except himself. 1 Cor. 15, 27.  
What's this to the Name? but here you do, petere caelum Stultitia, even what you can to overthrow the gracious dispensation of God. As if the three equal might not choose one through, by, and in whom all would be reconciled, known, and honoured all. Is it against the Scripture that the Son was humbled, and not the Father nor the Holy Ghost? Why then should the exaltation terminated in the person of the Son, and not of the Father, nor of the Holy Ghost be against the Scriptures? This advancing of jesus doth show that our salvation consulted by the three Persons, and undertaken only by the second, is equally to the glory of all. The doctrine is frequent in the new Testament, and the more the more desperate your opposition. 'Tis not the saying, that God excepted himself when all things are subjected unto Jesus, or that at 1 Pet. 3.21. Psal. 87.27. etc. Jesus is advanced over creatures only, will exeme him from the high sublimation, wherein the glory of the blessed Trinity is; and no where else refulgent. The Father not subjecting declares equality, and the Sons eminency his Father's excellency. He and the Father are one. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9 Pag. 87.88. etc.  
Did I now maintain the opinion that you persuade the world I am in, your ten arguments would be too senseless to evict me. How I stand, my Antiteich. declares. And once again I protest, that if it be superstition to honour our Saviour in the sense of his Name, I will, by the grace of God, contend to be so superstitious still.  
But here, I pray, tell me, who are they that do extol the bare Name? Not the Protestants I am sure, nor the Rhemists; men in the Moon perhaps; or else 'tis a Chimaera of your own brain. What is Christ's, should ever be handled with respect: His Name therefore; for that is his, and may not be separated from him.    

Seeing then, that the Name above every Name, 
Name above every Name, what it is.  cannot be the Name jesus, I understand it of the supereminent Glory and Power of Christ, and that upon these Reasons:  

Answer.  
Your transition unto the positive Thesis hath at the words (seeing then &c.) an epilogue of what you have showed: and what have you? Even the reeds that Midas Barber filled full of words. The Name above every Name may, for ought you have said, be a bare Name, and so honoured. And because you cannot prove any thing against your supposal, permit, I pray, our brethren to give the Name a sense, and Worship too, as the Name of jesus. That you will a man would think; For now you understand it of supereminent glory, and have reasons store for what you understand.    

First, It is no way contrary to the analogy of faith so to understand it; for Name is used for Glory and eminency familiarly in Scripture, as Gen. 11.4. and in common use of speech, as we say, Such a one hath a Name for wisdom and learning, when we note him to be eminent and potent for the same.  

Answer.  
Nihil occultum te latet, behold, what Eagles eyes have you got?  
(It is no way contrary to the analogy of faith so to understand it. Therefore it is so. Your reason is, because Name is used for glory, Gen. 11.4.)  
The sight is very dim that will be darkened with such a mist. By the same argument it may be the worship, or service of God. For so, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Name signifieth. Mat. 28.19. If you stand to this, this is as strong against, as for you. But it comes again with fresh supply at thirdly, and fourthly, and will be discussed then.    


Secondly, Name of God, etc. in Scripture doth commonly denote the Power, Majesty, and Glory of God; and that two ways; Either implicitly, or expressly.  
1. Implicitly, when the Person of God, because he is glorious, and full of Majesty, is only denominated properly and evidently, as Psal. 5.11. Let them that love thy Name be joyful in thee, that is, Let them that love thee. So Psal. 9.2. so Act. 3.16. even as we say to great men according to their degrees of honour, Your Majesty, your Grace, your Honour. So accordingly the Saints of God have usually spoken of God, and to God, and Christ, in, and by the Title of his Majesty, (Thy Name) because Name, Glory, and Kingdom are properly his.  
2. Expressly; when the Power and Glory of God is particularly and evidently manifested by the word Name, as 1 Sam. 17.45. I come unto thee in the Name, that is, In the power of the Lord of Hosts, So Rom. 9.17. That my Name, that is, My Glory may be declared: So Act. 4.7, By what power, or in what Name:   

Answer.  
At secondly you bring no more than I give you, viz. that Name is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and still the analogy is as proper for our sense as evident for yours. For though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Name, and the Name be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Lord; yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Name pronounced is no less among the Hebrews, nor ever otherwise in any other dialect.    

Thirdly, It is more agreeable to the analogy of the Scriptures so to understand it, than otherwise, for first, a great Name doth every where signify the great glory and dignity of the Person, Secondly, Name above another, doth every where signify the Glory and Dignity of the Person having that Name, above others whose names are not so great.  

Answer.  
Nihil veritas erubescit nisi solummodo abscondi, 
Tertul. Valent.  Truth fears nothing more, than not to be in public. Abscondat se serpens quantum potest, yet me thinks your oversight at thirdly and fourthly should make you blush. This is it. Having at first understood the Name above every Name to be the supereminent power, and glory of Christ, here you say, 'tis more agreeable to the Text so to read it then otherwise. For first and secondly, or if you will avoid the tautology, let both your reasons be this one.  
A great Name doth every where signify the great glory and dignity of the person.  
To grant this is to vanquish you. If it signify the glory, and the dignity, then 'tis not the glory, and the dignity. For Signum non est signatum, the sign is not the thing signified.    


Fourthly, It must be so understood here, and not for the Title jesus, because in this sense it fits the words of the Text answerable to other correspondent Scriptures; for thus I reason.  
Whatsoever Name is the gift which God gave Christ when he exalted him, is the Name above every Name in the Text: for so the words of the Text are, God highly exalted him, and gave him a name above every name.  
But Power and Glory is the gift, which God gave Christ when he exalted him, according to these correspondent Scriptures, Mat. 28.18. All power is given me in heaven and in earth; and 1 Pet. 1, 21. God raised Christ from the dead, and gave him glory.  
Ergo, Power and Glory is the Name in the Text above every Name. Therefore not the Name jesus.   

Answer.  
Must it so be understood, and not for the Name Jesus? And is that your reason, because power and glory is the gift which God gave Christ? Mat. 28, 18. 1 Pet. 1.21.  
'Tis true, power there and glory are given unto him: but power and glory are not the Name given him; though his Name be the Name of power and glory. Your Minor therefore is false; for if the gift be power and glory, the Apostle doth Idem per idem agere, and the exaltation of the person and Name must be both one. Or if the gift be power and glory, I would gladly know whether created, or increated? Created it cannot be, and be a Name above every Name. If increated, 'tis Arrianisme to say it was then given him.  
To escape this Dilemma you have no way save with the Fathers, and with us, to confess that given there is manifested. His Name was declared to be the Name of power and glory, that every knee might bow, and every tongue confess, that jesus Christ is Lord. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 14.15. etc. and the Syllogism will be thus:  
The Name ever which is highest advanced, is the Name above every Name.  
But the Name of jesus is the Name highest advanced.  
Ergo The Name of jesus is the Name above every Name.  
The Major and Minor are in the Text Phil. 2.9.10.11.  
What will you do? here's nothing for you to act, save the collier, and that you may in denying the conclusion.    

Fifthly, It is proved by the scope and coherence of the Text, for there is opposed the exaltation of Christ's Person to the humiliation of his Person; not of the name jesus to the name jesus, or any one Title to another. The conjunction (Wherefore) declares a correspondency of Christ's exaltation, according to the distinct branches of his humiliation. For the sufferings of Christ in the Text are reducible to two heads: The pain of feeling, and the pain of loss: The pain of feeling, in these words; He humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even unto the death of the Cross: The correspondent honour follows in these words; Wherefore God highly exalted him. The pain of loss, that is his departure from his Name and Glory; which is amplified in two respects. 1. In regard of the excellency of the person, that left his Glory: He that was in the form of God, and thought it no robbery to be equal with God, he became of no reputation: An extraordinary matter, that God should become Man, that the Lord of Lords should become a servant, that the God of Glory should receive shame. 2. It is amplified by the measure of the Glory which he laid down, for the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He emptied himself of his Name and dignity, He left as it were no Glory remaining, according to Isa. 53.3. He became not only man, but a servant, not a servant only, but the most despised of all servants, for he was reviled from the Prince to the abject. 1 Cor. 2.8. He was numbered with Thiefs and Malefactors, Mat. 27.38. He had a name of repute beneath all names and reputes; for Barnabas the murderer was preferred before him, john 18.40. See now how the conjunction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Wherefore, answereth to this, for it follows, God gave him a name above all names, that is, Power and dignity above all created powers and dignities whatsoever. It answers expressly to the name of power and Glory, not at all to the name jesus. Thus than I argue:  

Answer.  
Fifthly, you reason from the humiliation to the exaltation; and because your fancy vanisheth, without taking from; or adding to the Text, the Name of jesus is denied to be humbled, lest it should prove exalted. You do well in observing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but you might have done better in joining 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For, wherefore also doth demonstrate what you care not to see, viz. That he whose Person was so aviled, and his Name put out by an accursed death, is superexalted in both; and in both, by the union, and for our salvation. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1. pag. 4.5. etc.  
You have a great deal of the humiliation here, and go a great deal further than you should. For I cannot find, where Christ veiling his glory ever departed from it; nor can you prove it, without being an Heretic.  
A Person there is humbled, and, in your way, declared how. I will but ask a question or two, and you shall be condemned from your own mouth. Who was the Person so humbled? you must answer, the Son of God, made man. What was his Name? you answer, Phil. 2.6.10. his Name is Jesus. Then jesus was the Name so humbled, and by consequence the Name so exalted. For, from the humiliation the argument is good unto the exaltation. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 16, 17. etc.    


In respect of what Name Christ by this Text suffered in the time of his humiliation, in laying it down, and emptying himself of it: in respect of that Name God his Father when he exalted him, gave him a Name above every Name. But Christ according to this Text, in the time of his humiliation, suffered in respect of his reputation and glory, in laying it down, and emptying himself of it. Not so in respect of the Name jesus.  
Ergo, God his Father when he exalted him, gave him a name above every Name, according to this Text, in respect of glory and dignity, not in respect of the name jesus.  
It will thus therefore follow from the premises, that seeing the Name jesus is not the Name above every Name in the Text, it cannot be the Name in which every knee should bow: and seeing Christ's Name of Power and Glory is that Name, all knees must bow in his Name of power and Glory.   

Answer.  
The Minor of your imperfect Syllogism is not ad idem secundum idem, unless you intent that Christ in his humiliation suffered in the Name of his glory; but if it be as you have taken it hitherto, exclusiuè, it is false: Nor are you, nor all your Helps, by all their Sophistry, able to justify it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.16. etc. and the Syllogism will be thus.  
Whatsoever was the Name most abased, that is the Name above every Name exalted.  
But the Name of jesus is the Name which was most abased:  
Ergo, the Name of Jesus is the Name above every Name exalted.  
The Major and the Minor are in the Text, Phil. 2. I know for whose sake you will not deny the inference: and be it known also, that you have brought nothing in the negative part of this Section, save falsa supposita; nor other then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and those very dangerous in the affirmative. Our assertion therefore is still good.  
The Name of Jesus, or the Name Jesus, in the sense of the Name, is the powerful and glorious Name, or the Name of Power and Glory, super quod non est super, above which, there is nothing above.     

SECTION II. Wherein it is to be considered what is meant by the subjected Name, signified (every name) which are referred to things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth.  

Sundry Expositors do refer these Names to rational creatures only, but upon my poor judgement, yet submitting myself to better information, they are to be referred to every creature and thing, both rational and irrational, without exception of any. For it seems to me, that the Kingdom of Christ set forth in this Text, is not only his Kingdom of Mediatorship, but also his natural Kingdom, which from all Eternity he enjoyed with his Father, to which Kingdom he is advanced to by his Father, according to his humane nature: and this seems to agree with many paraled Scriptures; as 1. with job. 17.4.5. where Christ prayeth after this manner; I have glorified thee on earth, I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do: And now O Father, glorify me with thine own self, with that glory which I had with thee before the world was. 2. It is proved from Heb. 1.2. God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath made heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds, that is, God hath advanced his Son, according to his humane nature, to be partaker of the Glory of his Divine nature, who made the worlds, and all things therein, now to be inheritor of all things. Therefore saith Mr. Calvin on that place; Hic honor jure debetur, etc. 
Calvin o● Heb. 1.  This honour is rightly due to the Son of God, that he should have power over all things, because by him all things were made. 3. It is confirmed from that parallel place of Col. 1.15.16. 4. It is evident from 1 Cor. 15.27. where God having excepted himself, that did put all things under Christ's feet, it is plain, hath excepted nothing but himself. 5. It is manifest from Heb. 2, 6, 7.8. in which place the Apostle applies the eight Psalm to Christ, where is specified the subjection of irrational creatures; yea the Apostle saith expressly there, that God having put all things under Christ's feet, hath excepted nothing that is not put under him, 6. Seeing that it is manifest, that this Text of Phil. 2.9.10. shall not be perfectly fulfilled till the day of judgement, we shall find that other things besides rational creatures shall be subject at that day to Christ, for the Apostle shows 1 Cor. 15.26. that he shall destroy the last enemy, which is death, and Rev. 20.13. The Sea shall give up the dead which are in her, and death and hell shall yield up the dead which are in them. 7. It may appear from Rev. 5.13. a place correspondent in phrase and sense to Phil. 2.9.10. where the Holy Ghost having spoken before of all rational creatures, how they praised Christ, speaks there of irrational, both sensitive, and insensitive, and refers them to every creature, in heaven, in earth, and under the earth, and in the Sea, which creatures groaning now and travelling in pain for the sin of man, do long for the day of redemption, at which time they shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the Sons of God, and now in their kind they praise and glorify Christ in hope of it, but at that day shall their fullest praise and subjection be. So that it seems to me, that no creature, or thing, is excepted, but that all must bow to Christ, yea, indeed the Text of Phil. 2.9. seems to me plainly to infer it, for the Apostle speaking of all knees of things in every part of the whole universe, as Heaven, Earth, and under the earth, seems to except nothing from bowing to Christ. 
On Phil. 2.9.10.  And this appears to be the judgement of Mr, Calvin, Omnia à coelis, etc. God hath subjected all things from heaven to hell, to the rule and dominion of Christ: And of this opinion are plainly Origen and Hierome, as Bishop Babington citys them: 
In his Work Pag. 245. 246.  and thus judgeth Mr. Edward Gurnaie, in his Vindication of the Second Commandment, Pag. 72.  

Answer.  
Here you show an Aesculapian temper; though you have read much, yet your great Reading will submit to better: but your Mercurial wit hath mangonized a Gigantean fury with an humble hue. For by whom you pretend to be guided, you look on with a sinister eye, and oppose them with all your might.  
Let me premise that by Names in your first line must be understood every Name under 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, above. V 9 or else the question is changed. This done, your argument stands thus.  
The Kingdom of Christ in this Text is not only of Mediatorship, but natural also. Therefore every Name must be referred to all creatures without exception.  
The antecedent is false. For though they seclude not one the other, as, opposita, yet when the Ecumenical is spoken of, the essential is not intended. For th● Natural is Christ● 〈◊〉 Son of God: the personal his secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●y dispensation only, as he is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God and Man. This the Apostle minds and the administration of this here, and hereafter. This is it at the three parallel places, Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. Phil. 2.10. as the ancient and modern Divines, heeding the context, have necessarily inferred. See my Antit. Tract. 6. pag. 53. etc.  
The Texts are very quiet among themselves, if you could permit them their senses. They do not all which you have cited, speak of the Natural Kingdom only: But if they did, may not Phil. 2.10. be understood of the Personal? Doth not the Apostle here say, that every knee and every tongue shall confess that jesus is Lord, or made Heir of all things, as to the Hebrews he writeth, Heb. 1.2. How made? He ever was Heir, and never not Heir as the Son of God. Made then he was, gratia dispensationis, and by the Union as God and Man. As then the Church is in the Commonweal, yet is not the Commonweal; so here this Personal Kingdom is within the Natural, yet not the Natural; and as in the one, so in the other; what is spoken of the one, is not of the other.  
Your forcing of several Texts, to force on this Text the sense of the Natural Kingdom, makes me fear you are inclining to Eutychisme: Not distinguishing how Christ hath any thing in a singular manner, you apprehend all things his by nature only, and according to humane nature also, in your first and second proof. Indeed, Christ-man hath the essential Kingdom, but not as man, for then every man should have it also; and where were subjection then?  
Though therefore whatsoever is in, or of one or the other Nature, may be spoken of the whole person, yet not otherwise then limitate, according to that nature whose propriety it is. Christ-man hath the essential glory according to his Divine nature, not according to the humane; the humane nature receives of the Divine by grace in fruition, not by real participation. There is no more proved at joh. 17. Heb. 1.2. nor more in the subsequent citations, then that the Son of God having taken upon him in our nature a personal Kingdom, holds still his natural. And so much doth M. Calvin, 
Calvin. in Heb.  whom you urge, say at Heb. 1.2. and not more at Phil. 2.9.10. Whether the Fathers determine it so, or no, you may ●ee in my Antiteichisma.  
I might now pass unto your third Section, had you not insinuated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every Name, to be all creatures only.  
With what intent looked you on the Text? Minded you to pervert it, that you might miscarry others? Or did your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deceive your sense? Shore up your eyes, and try whether you can discern a Colon, or no, at 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, every Name? Can you not, and yet see to make a Comma there, and another at shall bow? Is not this to add and diminish? Strive whilst you will, your own snare hath caught, and shall hold you, till your heart have cried your Pen mercy. Shall I be plain with you? you have taken this of a very false hand: for I am persuaded, that your vaunt of knowledge cannot be ignorant, 
Isid. Orig. l. 1▪ c. 18.  that Colon is membrum quod intellectum sensui praestat. The understanding then being satisfied at the Name in the Colon, goes not to the next for that it hath, but for more: Namely for the duty, that the Name having full regard, God who gave the Name may have his full glory. For this purpose are Commas, Colons, and Periods kept, that there being no confusion in oratione, there may be no distortion in sensu.  
I have been bold, and will be more. This you say, God hath given Christ a Name which is above every Name (here you give a lose, and take part of the next verse) of things in heaven, and in earth, and under the earth; and so leave the rest, that at the Name of jesus every Knee should bow, to a Colon by itself.  
If you have no better course to express the meaning of the Holy Ghost, the world will soon know, judge, and conclude, that M. Gyles being very lame, hath deserted the question. Who desire more, may see my Antiteich. Tract. 3. pag. 17. 18. 19 20. etc. and the Syllogism will be this.  
That Name ever, above which there is no other Name of God, is the Name above every Name.  
But the Name of Jesus is that Name above which there is no other Name of God.  
Ergo, The Name of Jesus is the Name above every Name.  
The Major is undeniable, the Minor is in the Text plainly demonstrated in my Antiteich. and is always intended de nominibus, non de modis rei, not that the relation Son of God, as a Son, is a greater Name than God the Father, as Father; but of all the Names of God, the Name of Jesus is the greatest signifying Name of might poured forth in mercy.  
Jesus, per Nomen tuum dulce, fac mihi secundum nomen tuum. 
Aug. de contrite. cord. c. 5.      

SECTION III Wherein it is to be examined, what is meant by bowing every knee.  


BOwing the knee cannot be here taken plainly and literally for the bowing of that member of the body, which is called the knee; 
Bowing every knee, what it is not.  for these Reasons:  
First, If it be not so taken, it is not contrary to the Analogy of Faith; for, 1. Bowing is applied to the souls of men, which properly cannot bow: Psal. 44.25. Our soul is bowed down to the dust: 2. It is applied to mountains and hills, Hab. 3.6.  
Secondly, Knees are taken figuratively and metaphorically in Scripture, for strength, power, and ability, as Ezech. 7.17. where God threatens, that when he shall arise to destroy Jerusalem, he will make all hands to be feeble, and all knees to be weak as water, that is, he will turn all their strength into extreme weakness. So when God promiseth to give strength and salvation to his people, 
Isa. 35.3.  he bids them to strengthen the weak hands and confirm the feeble knees: because by the hands and knees the strength is manifested; the knees being at it were the Basis of the whole body, which being feeble, the body sinks:   

Answer.  
I fear not, but the weight of your reasons will show your arguments light. The first and second hold nothing. The first is this, if bowing the knee be not here taken literally, it is not contrary to the analogy of faith. To this your second must come, or I, gone thither, shall have no appetite to return unto the first. Recocta crambe fastidium parit. First then, and Secondly, if you be right, there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in making the knees, and bowing in the Text Phil. 2.10 metaphorical. Is there not? No more than is there at the second Commandment; nor Psal. 95.6. nor Isa. 45.23. nor Rom. 14 11. nor Ephes. 3.14. nor any where. Because Knees and bowing are somewhere figurative, as Psal. 44.25. Hab. 3.6. Ezech. 7.17. they shall be no where proper. Hell is sometimes taken metaphorically for the grave, therefore there is properly no hell: and could you make it good, that because God in Scripture is sometimes attributed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to Idols; sometimes, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto Magistrates; therefore there is no true God, you might safely be as great a Libertine as any.    


Thirdly, Because the most of the Creatures, which here must bow knees, yet have no proper knees to bow: as Angels, Devils, many sensitive, and all insensitive creatures. And seeing that the Apostle gins with things in Heaven, where in the highest Heaven are the Angels, and the souls of just men made perfect; In the second Heaven, Stars and celestial Orbs; In the lowest Heaven, mists, dews, and clouds: it were senseless to imagine, that God in the first place should command these to bow proper corporal knees, when they have no such knees to Bow. Hence I argue: Whatsoever bowing is expressly required in the Text, shall be performed by every creature.  
But bowing of proper corporal knees, shall not be performed by every creature, yea, not by most of the creatures.  
Ergo, Bowing of proper corporal knees, is not expressly required in the Text,   

Answer.  
Most of the creatures, which here must bow, have no proper Knees to bow. Ergo, etc. Prove the antecedent if you can. What if Angels, and devils have no Knees, yet most of the creatures, which are reasonable to account, have. I know you will not say, yet if you should you cannot justify, that there are more Angels good, and bad, than men elect and reprobate. The Speech than may be proper in the greater number, which yet is analogical in the less. But may not Angels have their Knees, as well as their tongues, as their faces? Tongues they have, 1 Cor. 13.1. faces they have, Rev. 7.11. and Knees too, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they stood, they fell down, standing, falling insinuate Knees, and if we add two words more, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they adored, they spoke, we have full proof of their outward expressions, Rev. 7.11.12. and that's enough for those that can be satisfied with reason. All insensitive creatures, as Stars, Clouds, Vegetables, etc. in your Calendar, are without the Apostles Scope, as not having any faculty to this reasonable service of God: See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. pag. 53. etc.  
The Major and Minor in your Syllogism are both false. Gigni de nihilio nihilum, 
Pers. Sat. 3.  of nothing nothing's got.    

The corporal Bowers at the Name jesus, do give this answer, which indeed cannot satisfy: They say that those creatures which have not corporal knees, yet have something correspondent to knees, and therefore do bow after their kind and manner. I reply. 1. I would feign know how it is, that they bow after their kind and manner, except it be by their obedience and subjection, will they nill they to the dominion of the Lord jesus. 2. However they bow, surely they do not bow corporal knees, therefore if such bowing be expressly commanded in the Text, how shall they fulfil the Text? Seeing then that the most of the creatures can fulfil the Text without bowing corporal knees; it is manifest that bowing corporal knees is not expressly required in the Text. Surely it would aruge want of wisdom in God, or great injustice, if he should command his creatures that duty, which they cannot perform. (To illustrate it by this simile) if a great King should send out an Edict to tax every one of his Subjects both great and small, with a tax of twenty pound a man, when he is not ignorant, that there are thousands in his Dominions, that are not able to pay twenty shillings a man, would not this argue want of wisdom and justice? In like manner, this would argue the like imputation in God, if he should enjoin all creatures and things to bow corporal knees, when the most of them have no such knees to bow. If it should be said that those Subjects of such a King cannot pay, where it is not, it is sufficient that they pay what they are able; but let them that are able, pay the whole sum. I answer, this had been reasonable, if the King's command had been so; but how shall this excuse the King, that against his knowledge shall command all his Subjects to pay alike, as well those that are not able, as those that are? So to say in respect of this bowing, let those that have no knees, pay what they can, but let those that have knees pay knees; It were fair indeed, if God should leave it so at liberty, But how can this acquit God of want of wisdom and justice, if he should command all creatures and things to bow corporal knees, when he knoweth that the most of his creatures, and things, have no such knees to bow.  

Answer.  
What's there, is little to the purpose. Vnde habeas, quaerit nemo.  
If some have said, I do, that Angels have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to our Knees. They have no Knees visibly corporal, as ours are, yet invisibly corporal they have in analogy to ours. Your Simile therefore of a great King, etc. argues no want of wisdom, or injustice in God, but presumption in you: that not knowing the reason of all things dare so argue; and contempt in you, that have Knees, and will not bow. For the creatures which God hath bound to this duty, have potentium obedientialem for the performance. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6.    


Seeing then that bowing of the knee cannot be taken literally, I understand it of subjection, and so it is taken, Gen. 27.29. Thus Isaac blesseth jacob, Let people serve thee, and Nations bow down to thee, that is, let them be subject to thee. So Pro. 14, 19, etc. So in common use of speech, when one saith to another, that he will make him bow, he meaneth that he will make him yield. The same subjection is signified, Psal. 2.12, by the word, Kiss, where Rulers and judges are commanded to kiss Christ, that is, to yield their subjection to him. If then the word Kiss in that place, cannot be taken properly but figuratively, why should it be thought unreasonable by any, to have bowing the knee here to be understood figuratively?  
Now that bowing here is meant of subjection, many correspondent places do evidently prove it, as 1 Cor. 15, 27, Heb. 2.8. Ephes. 1.22. testified by the most judicious Primitive Fathers that writ upon the said Text, as also by our most eminent modern Divines, as that worthy and famous Confessor of Christ Master William Prin, largely evidenceth in his learned Appendix against bowing at the Name jesus, to which I refer thee,  
By bowing every knee of things in Heaven, things in Earth, and things under the Earth, is understood the subjection of all things and creatures, with all and every one of their powers, faculties, virtues, & abilities, will they nill they to the dominion & government of Ch●ist. There is not the least ability in the nature of man, 
Vindication of the second Commandment. Pag. 72.  saith M, Gurnay, but must find a knee to bow to Christ; our least muscles, and knuckles, inclinations, and dispositions: The like may be said of every creature, they must bow the strength they have in every part of them, to the power and dominion of Christ. And in this general sense, the knee of the body properly so called, is not excluded; but in a proper and literal sense it is not enjoined.   

Answer.  
What you cannot prove not to be, you will to be something. For Gen. 27.29. bowing is subjection, so is it Prov. 14.19. so is Kissing, Psal. 2.12. so 1 Cor. 15.27. Heb. 2.8. Eph. 1.22. all things are subject unto Christ.  
Hoc est, quod palles? Did the study for this make you pale? And did it make Master William Prynne a worthy and famous Confessor too? I have known men at loss by their pains; if you are conscious, be more careful, or no more public.  
I have in earnest searched all your quoted places, and find not the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Isay 45.23. or Psal. 95.6. nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at Rom. 14.11. or Eph. 3.14. or Phil. 2.10. used in any of these places. And I affirm, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infers such a bowing as yields an outward expression, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth intimate no other: nor doth Master Gurnay, in your citation, gainsay this. Your Crack of the most judicious primitive Fathers is but a Crack. See my Antiteich. Tract. 5. and cry out upon your Creditors.    


Secondly, it is to be considered what is meant by the confession of every tongue.  
By the Confession of every tongue; is not meant properly and literally the vocal confession of that member which we call the tongue, because every Name under Christ's Name, which must bow the knee, must also confess with the tongue, which for the most part want tongues as well as knees.  
By the confession with the tongue, that jesus Christ is the Lord, is meant the expression and yielding forth of the several parts, functions, gifts, powers, and abilities of every creature, both rational & irrational, to the glory and praise of Christ the highest Lord. 1. That it is understood of all kinds of creatures, it is evident from the forequoted place of Rev. 5. vers. 10. where the four Beasts, and the four and twenty Elders, by whom are understood rational creatures, as Angels and men, are said to extol and glorify Christ. And it follows verse 13. that john heard all the creatures in Heaven and Earth, and under the Earth, and in the Sea, and all that are in them, to say, Praise, glory, and honour be to the Lamb, etc. which creatures there, are all irrational creatures, which have no proper tongues to speak, and yet are said to speak the praise of Christ. Even as the Heavens and the Earth are said, Psal. 19.1.2.3. to speak in all languages the praise of God their Creator: So now they shall praise Christ the great Lord and Redeemer. And secondly, that every part and parcel of the creature shall praise the Lord, it appears from Psal. 103.1.2.3. where the Prophet David calls upon his Soul, and all that is within him, that is, all the vigours and powers that are in every part of him, to praise the Lord, As David in every part of him praised God, and the Messiah to come, so shall every part of every creature either willingly or unwillingly praise and extol the great Name of the Lord Jesus being come and advanced; and in this general sense the proper tongue of man is not excluded. And thus at the last day the Friends of Christ with their wills, and his enemies against their wills, shall call Christ Lord, Mat. 7.22. Mat. 25.37.44,   

Answer.  
Secondly, to uphold your Utopicall subjection, by the confession of the Tongue, may not be meant a literal and vocal confession of that member: And why? Doth not the Apostle say, that with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation, Rom. 10.10. The Heart and Tongue, Soul and Body, make a full subjection. The very Angels have their outward expressions, and we must have ours, or else God hath not all his.  
What you urge at Rev. 5.10.11.12. is strong against you: but you find a Prosopopaeia in the 13. verse, and that Psal. 19 and 103. all mute creatures are induced, speaking the praise of God; therefore the reasonable must be tongue-tied. A non esse ad esse non valet argumentu●: But if your conclusion be, therefore the reasonable must suo modo confess, as the irrational do their way; then as they with all their might, we do with ours, not only inwardly yield, but outwardly also, by Tongue and Knee, etc. show forth our obedience. This you ought to mind, or in your general acception of subjection you contradict yourself: for all the Virtues appear not, if any Knee or Tongue be excepted. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. pag. 28. & Tract. 5. pag. 43. 44. etc. and the Syllogism will be this:  
Whatsoever bowing is expressly required in the Text, aught to be performed by every creature enjoined it.  
But corporal bowing is expressly required in the Text.  
Therefore corporal bowing aught to be performed by every creature enjoined it.  
The Mayor and the Minor are in the Text, and you in your subjection general and general confession yield as much. Do what you can, you can but obscure the truth, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to the ignorant people. Others find, before they seek you, and will shame you, unless your timely recantation be more fortunate than your miserable Art.     

SECTION IU. Wherein it is to be considered what is meant by this phrase, In the Name of jesus.  


THe Bowers at the Name jesus, to make their opinion and practise good, do thus understand in the Name of jesus to be at the mention of the Name jesus. But I infer, that this interpretation is senseless and absurd, having for it no ground or warrant from Scripture. For 1. as I said before, this phrase, Name of jesus, is never taken for the Name jesus, or for any other Titles of our Saviour. 2. Therefore, In the Name of jesus, can never be taken for at the mention of the Name jesus any where. 3. This phrase, In the Name, prefixed before any of the Titles of the Deity, as in the Name of Christ, Lord, God, etc. is never taken for at the Naming of any of these Names in any part of the old and new Testament, but if any shall fasten such a sense upon it any where, it will mar and murder the sense, as indeed it doth the sense of this Text by that exposition. To instance but in two places amongst many. Psal. 118.10. All Nations compassed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them; would not it be a wild sense to say, At the Naming of the Lord I will destroy them? So Act. 9.29. Saul spoke boldly in the Name of the Lord Jesus; were it not infinitely absurd to say, that he spoke boldly at the Naming of the Lord jesus? Thus ridiculous will the sense be made everywhere, where this phrase is used according to this exposition, try it who will.  
This exposition which they make of the Text is one of the main pillars of their cause, which did they not make, they should lose a main and principal ground for this their opinion and practice, and therefore this falling them all fails them: I know they are not able to bring any one Scripture for to warrant this exposition. They have no vision for it, therefore they are naked, It is built upon the lose Sand of vain opinion, and not upon the Scriptures, therefore it falls to the ground. All the warrant they have for this exposition is this, that (in) doth often signify (at) or (to) I answer, this is nothing, except they can bring any Scripture for the whole phrase, viz. that in the Name doth signify (at the mention of the Name) which they cannot do: For my part, I refuse not to take the Preposition (or) as they would have it taken, and so it shall make for me, and not for them: Let (in) be as much, as (to) or (at) and so, for as much as I have showed before, that Name of God or Christ, doth denote the Power and glory of Christ, either expressly or implicitly, I take it, this phrase In the Name of jesus, may be indifferently referred either to the Power and glory of Christ expressly, so the sense will be this: Every knee or Power shall bow at, or to the Power and Glory of Christ, or rather to the person of Christ, implicitly enfolding his Power and Dominion; and then the sense will be this; Every knee shall bow at, or to Christ. And thus it agrees to this phrase in Psal. 63.4. Thee will I bless while I live, I will lift up my hands in thy Name, that is, I will lift up mine hands to thee, or I will worship and adore thee, and agrees fitly also with Isa. 45.23. which is applied to Christ, Rom. 14.11. As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me. So that according to the meaning of the Preposition (in) in their own sense, the whole phrase being expounded according to the Analogy of Faith, makes against them, and not at all for them.   

Answer.  
The Bowers, say you, at the Name Jesus, to make their opinion and practise good, do understand in the Name of jesus, to be at the mention of the Name jesus. But I infer, that this interpretation is senseless, and absurd.  
So do I, and having done, need say no more. But I must tell you, that the Devil is a liar, cunning, and obstinate. Do we, your derided Bowers, bow at the naked Name jesus? Do we interpret the Text at the mentioning of the Name jesus? How often have you heard of this false suppositum? Even so often, that I could easily have believed your head before this time had been purged with Helebore, your brain crammed with more wit, and your mind with conscientious notions. But I see what colour you have lost, and wish that none else might see wherewith you are intinct.  
Yet my good will to you may not endanger me for your Vizard: Look to it, I have already loosed it, and when this string is untied, it will drop off.  
First, you say this phrase Name of Jesus is never taken for the Name Jesus. Here is petitio principii, and where before you said it, 'tis answered before, Sect. 1.  
Secondly, in the Name of Jesus can never be taken for the mention of the Name Jesus. You must put in and out what you please, or will be pleased with nothing. In your phrase is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which permitted will delude. At the mention of jesus say we, and so it is ad idem secundum idem.  
Hither comes your thirdly, where is idem per idem, a mere dilatation of the second. It is never, etc. that is, it is no where in the Old and New Testament so taken, was your sense before, and it is no other here.  
But will you yield, if I take from you your own Weapons? Psal. 118.10. All Nations compassed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them. What is your sense here? Even, that it is wild to say, at the naming of the Lord I will destroy them. Were you well when you printed this? Can there be intended mo●e by in the Name of the Lord, than the bringing of the Lord in medium, into the midst, as Master Calvin 
Calvin in loc.  saith, between himself and his enemies? And is there any other way to do that, then by the faithful mentioning of his Name? Your ancient hold is down, and your new falling to the ground.  
At Act. 9.29. Saul spoke boldly in the Name of the Lord jesus s you hold it infinitely absurd to say, that he spoke boldly at the naming of the Lord jesus. Is this absurd, and infinitely? We all know, that Saint Paul was a zealous Professor; and might he be stout in professing Christ, and not bold at the mentioning or naming of jesus? He is very stoutly preached, whom we fear to name. Where is this great Challenger? Were Anteus he, he should never rise again.  
Places are frequent in the Bible to maintain this: The third Commandment admits it: For there we are enjoined not to mention jehovah in vain, if Expositors may be credited. The Name of the Lord may not be heard, written, spoken, any way handled, without due respect. Joh. 16.23. Whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my Name, that is, by faith mentioning me as the Mediator, he shall give you. Act. 5.40. not to speak in the Name of jesus, is, not to make mention of jesus, either by Preaching, or otherwise, to his glory. At our invocation, even the Name of Jesus is a faithful naming, or mentioning of him, not inwardly always, but by heart and tongue also at times unto God, Eph. 5.20. etc.  
No Christian ever denied this, and yet this with you is wild, absurd, ridiculous, quicquid tibi suggesserit splendida bilis, what your humour pleaseth. When the Dog-days be past, a time may be found to purge you of this Choler; the while, your Neighing and Wincing gets nothing but Spur-gaules. And let that serve for your eight frothy Lines, of our building on the lose sand of vain opinions.  
What you desire next, is showed before, that one sense of in the Name of jesus, is in analogy to other Texts.  
The signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though questionable, you grant to be at: who doubt it, may see my Antit. Tract. 4. p. 29. 30. where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is declared by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Name of Jesus is as much, as in the naming of him, or when he is named. And this periphrasis is usual in the old and new Testament. Gen. 1.1. In the beginning, is when the beginning was. 1 Thess. 3.13. In the coming of our Lord, is when he cometh.  
Your sense I grant to be true, viz. That every knee shall bow to Christ, and unto his glory, if you exclude not the literal. For beside bowing to the Person, and in glory of the Person, terminus a quo, the whereat, or bowing at the Name is expressed. See my Antiteich.  
Nor is there less to be minded in the words of the Prophet, Psal. 63.4. I will lift up my hands in thy Name; that is, when I call upon thee, at thy Name unto thee will I lift up my hands. At the hearing of a Voice, we find the Disciples fell on their faces, Mat. 17.6. And of Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. the Text at Phil. 2.10. is the full exposition. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. there it is resolved, and the Syllogism is this.  
The literal sense, not against, nor beside, but in the analogy of the truth is to be observed.  
But the bowing at the Name, or mention of Jesus, is the literal sense, not against, nor beside, but in the analogy of truth.  
Ergo, The bowing at the Name, or mention of Jesus, is to be observed.  
The Major is a perpetual canon; the Minor out of your own Quotations is demonstrated before. And for helping me where you endeavoured to wound me most, I remember you of a short sentence in Isocrates, 
Isocrat. Ora. ad Demon.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.     

SECTION V.  


THus having opened the Text, I will briefly gather the sense together, according as it hath been opened, and show the meaning of the Text, and compare it to the exposition, which they make of it, and then let judgement pass upon it.  
The sense than will be this: Our Lord jesus Christ being in the form of God, equal with God, made himself of no reputation, (that is) laid down his Name, and Dignity, and received a Name beneath all Names, and being made like unto Man, and taking upon him the form of a Servant, humbled himself to death, even to the death of the Cross: Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave him a Name above every Name, that is, Glory, Renown, Dominion, and Dignity, above all things, and creatures, created Powers, Dignities, Dominions, that all things, creatures, powers in Heaven and Earth, and under the Earth, should subject themselves, and all their strength, virtues, and abilities, either willingly or unwillingly to jesus Christ, thus glorified, and advanced, and that they should express, and show forth, that jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father, for so I take it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being often used for (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and thus this branch Christ's exaltation will fully answer to that branch of his humiliation, mentioned verse 7, where it is said, that He took upon him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likeness of Man, but now being exalted, he shall be manifested to be Lord in the Glory of God the Father. Which shall be fully declared in the great Day of judgement, when he shall appear in his Glorious Name of Power and Glory: And of this opinion are Ambrose, and Hierome, and other Fathers, and Calvin, and Zanchius, and Piscator, besides sundry other modern Expositors do allow of it: Though the other expositions be sound, viz. To the glory of God the Father, because the honour of the Son is the honour of the Father.   

Answer.  
In the fifth Section, having undertaken to give us the meaning of the Text, you desire judgement, and let it pass.  
You say our Lord jesus Christ, being in the form of God, etc. laid down his Name and dignity; and received a Name beneath all Names.  
I challenge you in these words: For though it be true that he vailed his glory, yet he laid not down his Name: What he ever was, he remained still the Son of God. Nor did he receive a Name beneath all Names, though he and it were by sinners handled beneath all degrees of baseness.  
You go on thus; Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave him a Name above every Name, that is, glory above every creature.  
Here you dealt not fairly with your Reader, you say the Name given is glory, must not then the Name under supper above, be glory too, and the sense thus? He hath given him, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, glory above all glory. If you look into S. chrysostom, 
Chrysost, in Loc. Phil. 2.  greater Scholars than yourself kept that analogy. Nor do the Learned, except the Arrians, make glory a Name which Christ had not before; but say, God then did set out his glory in the highest, that Jesus, which was a Name of scorn among men, might be the highest Name in Power and glory. Nay, Power and glory are the essential virtues of his Person, but the Name given him, or illustrated his, must denote who, and what the Person is.  
It follows, that all creatures should subject themselves willingly or unwillingly with all their abilities, to jesus Christ thus glorified, and express, that jesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father.  
Here you enlarge the Text and shorten it. For first, all creatures are not capable of this adoration. Secondly, you obscure by generals, what the Apostle expresseth in particulars. Not denying geniculation, nor open confession, you wrap them up in the virtues to be expressed by creatures. Thirdly, not subscribing to the manner and time of the duty, you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the Name redundant. As if you were now afraid to let the people know, that when the wind shall turn, you will maintain outward worship and and open confession lawful and necessary.  
The observation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is true, and what I say of it, is in my Antiteich. Tract. 9 Pag. 87.  
Your showing also, how Christ's being in the glory, doth answer to his being in the form of a Servant, is very good. I will only tell you, what I said before (Sect. 1. at the last fourthly) you would come to; even to confess that, Given, is manifested, that the Name above every Name, is the Name of Power and glory; and so you have in plain terms, viz. But now being exalted, he shall be manifested to be Lord in the glory of God the Father, which shall be fully at last, when he shall appear in his glorious Name of power and glory.  
There is first a manifesting of what he had, no giving of that he had not. Secondly his Name is of Power and glory: Power and glory is not his Name. And of this opinion are the Divines, ancient and modern, which you have named, and others, see my Antiteich. Tract. 3. Pag. 15. 16. etc.    

Now this exposition is full and easy, making the sense clear, but the other exposition, which they make, makes the sense rugged, and is not agreeable to the scope of the Text, nor sense of other correspondent Scriptures. For thus they reason; jesus Christ being in the form of God, thought it no robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, etc. Wherefore God highly advanced him, and gave him a proper Name, or Title above every Name, that when the Name jesus shall be sounded out in the Church, in the time of prayer or preaching, for there and then, say they, is the place and time of this duty, all things in Heaven, and Earth, and unde● the Earth, should bow corporal knees: A most absurd and senseless exposition.  

Answer.  
Having done your exposition, you give it this gloss. It is full easy clear.  
You might have said, short, hard, doubtful: Short, chopping off the visible part of God's Worship; Hard, making th● whole Text figurative; Doubtful, not only contradicting what you said before, but opposing axioms in divinity also, and bringing in those creatures that come not within the compass of the precept. Were your mind right, your meaning would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, uniform, and not involved.  
To make all sure, you insinuate into the Reader, that our interpretation is rugged, not agreeable to the scope of the Text, nor sense of other correspondent Scriptures.  
One said, men are most like unto God, cum vera loquuntur, 
Sphinx Theolog. Phil. c. 24.  when they speak the truth; though he were an Ethnic, Pythagoras spoke like a Christian.  
Take it not ill, I say you here degenerate from your common profession, though not from Puritanisme. Do not you know, that the literal is the plain and even sense? How then can ours be rugged? Yours are conscious; and in my Antiteichisma, who will read, may see that ours goes home with every tittle: where then fails it in the Scope? And you have been taught the correspondence with other Texts: why then is it private, or singular?  
The sum of our Tenet is this: The Lord Jesus, by the Union, and for our Salvation, was humbled; wherefore also God super-exalted him, and set out the Name of Jesus above every Name: that for the Union, and for our Salvation, every rational creature should bow at the Name of Jesus, and every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.  
Is this it you term absurd and senseless? A good Soldier will not forsake his Hold, for the barking of a Dog; nor a true Christian desert the truth, for the scoff of a Separatist.  
You disdain, that the Name of jesus should be the Name above every Name: Is not this Semi-Arrian-Socinianisme? Were you throughly sifted, would it not be found among your Traditions of Purity, that Christ suffered merely to confirm his Doctrine; and we, righteous only in the imitation of him, shall for our own works be exalted into glory? What is the Name, and that it can be no other than the Name of jesus, is at large in my Antiteichisma.  
Next, you charge us for maintaining, that at the mentioning of jesus in the Church, at the time of Prayer, or Preaching, all things in Heaven, and in Earth, and under the Earth, should bow corporal knees.  
This was hammered at your own Anvil. we'll admlt your sense so fare as it may concern us; we in our times and places, the other in theirs: And that we are limited by the Church, is no injury to the Text, Doctor Page, if you would remember, taught you this by a Rule of the Schools; 
D. Pag. justificat. of bowing. Pag. 11.  That affirmative Precepts, though they always bind from doing the contrary, yet do not bind us to all times, and to all occasions.  
So for Prayer and Fasting, the Scripture leaveth them at large, and for Prayer, doth seem to bind us to it always. For Saint Paul saith, Pray continually, 1 Thess. 5.17. which is well expounded, not of every time, but of every opportunity. If then we may truly and justly limit a substantial duty of God's service to some certain times, though the Text seem to enjoin it at all times, much more may we limit a circumstantial duty belonging unto God, especially when the Text leaves it more at large. At all times be the Name used reverently, but in our devotions, private and public, we are strictly tied. Add this; the day of the Resurrection is the day which the Lord hath made, and every seventh day after is the day we sanctify in remembrance of it: Whose Person therefore and Name God on that day highly exalted, we on that day and the other show the superexaltation of his Name and Person.    


I will note here a few absurdities, which they make in the sense by this their interpretation, in comparison of the clearness of the former exposition, leaving the most material absurdities to be considered of hereafter.  
First then, To understand Name above every Name, for Glory and Power above all, hereby is evidently set down, what Name it is, that God gave to Christ, viz, the Name of Power, and Glory. But to understand Name for a proper Name to be called by, it is not manifested what Name it is: they say, it is the Name jesus, but the Text doth not say so in that phrase as they understand it. And expounding it of the Name jesus, what absurdity is this to say, that God gave his Son that Name at his exaltation, when he received it at his Circumcision? This is to make God to dally wi●h his Son: To give, and take, and to give again; For it is plain, that if now he had it given him, it was not then in his possession.   

Answer.  
Now you seem to show how absurd we are, by opposing your own opinion to our expression.  
First, if Name above every Name be Power and Glory, it is evident what Name it is that God gave unto Christ, viz. the Name of Power and Glory.  
You heard before, that the Name cannot be Power and Glory. Secondly, the consequence is naught, Notum per ignotius, it makes the plain obscure. Thirdly, you contradict your first mind, Sect. 1. in that you express the Name which God gave Christ to be the Name of Power and Glory. For, if it be the Name of Power and Glory, jesus is it, whose Virtue the Power is, or else you do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But to understand Name for a proper Name, it is not, you say, manifested what it is, etc.  
No? Read the Text, and in the tenth Verse it is the Name of jesus. Nor is it absurd to hold, that God gave his Son that Name at his Exaltation, when he received it at his Circumcision: For, the giving of the Name is the manifesting and declaring of the Name, as before; and you have so expounded it in this Section.  
Nor doth this make God to dally with his Son, to give, and take, and give again, unless you will deny the gracious dispensation of the Lord. But for your profane boldness with God and his Word, I will not dally with you.  
Your reason of your affirmation is, in your own words, this: For it is plain, if he had it now given him, it was not then in his own possession. You cannot avoid Arrianisme, take it how you will: If of the Name of jesus, then by your saying, Christ was not jesus before the Exaltation; if of Power and Glory, than Power and Glory was not in his possession before. Take heed, you know whose bowels the impetuous blasts thrust forth.    

Secondly, When we understand Name, for the Power, and Glory of Christ, and bowing of subjection to the Power of Christ, or to Christ himself advanced, it is showed to whom this bowing shall be performed, viz, to Christ. But by understanding Name for the Name jesus, and the bowing to be done at the sound thereof, they only set down a time, when the bowing shall be done, but they declare not to whom it shall be done: This they say, at the sound of the Name jesus, every knee shall bow, but they do not manifest the Person to whom these knees shall bow,  

Answer.  
In your sense, there is nothing at all showed. Not Bowing: for, as you have handled it, it is an invisible any, or every thing, a general yielding without expression. Not the Time: for how know we when to bow, if the power be not signified by some Name, or sign. Not the Person: for he is out of our sight.  
But to bow at the mention of Jesus; not, as you would, to the bare Name jesus, notes the Time, when jesus is named; points out the Person, at the Name of jesus; and declares the subjection full; outward and inward. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. and 5.    

Thirdly, In taking (in the Name of jesus) to be at the mention of the Name jesus, as they do not plainly apply any honour to the Person, so neither to the Name; but it must stand but for a cipher, or watchword, to give notice when the bowing shall be performed; but according to this their exposition they cannot give it any honour; and it is absurd to have this Name to be so highly advanced above all Names, and yet not to give it honour. But they will have honour to be given it, therefore they will have (in the Name) to be understood to the Name at the mention of it. And so Bishop Andrew's the Oracle of that opinion understands it, yet hereby is not the Person of Christ properly denominated, because so the exposition refers the whole bowing to the Name, none at all to the Person, and themselves confess, that to bow to the Name, and not to the Person, is Idolatry.  

Answer.  
Here you are aviated, and say you know not what. What? do we neither respect his Name, nor his Person? Are we Jews, think you, to bow the Knee in derision of him? Or were not you of Protagoras sect, when in derision of our bowing at the Name, you told some of your Parishiones how the boy that was whipped cried out jesus, and made his Master kiss his posteriours.  
The defacing of the Image is the disgracing of the Prince: and the mocking of the Christian is the scorning of Christ. Irrisor non poenitens! Lycurgus' King of Thracia, despising Bacchus, chopped his leg asunder, as he lopped his Vine. Take this till more comes.  
Now I may tell you that we make not the Name a cipher. For in the Name we behold the circle of perfection, in it a Unit, in that Unit three angules, and in the middle two natures, and of these but one Person, Jesus Christ.  
Nor yet a mere Watchword. Indeed the naming gives notice that it is our time, but the Name carries us in our adoration unto his Person. The Name hath regard, and the Person the duty. In the sense of his Name, no otherwise do we honour him.  
And so doth Bishop Andrew's▪ the Oracle of his time, not of this opinion, as you term him, understand it. But suppose he had been the first in it, I should rather confide in his judgement, then in Mr. Prin, Mr. Burton, Mr. Gyles, and all the Arrians, Socinians, Anabaptists, Brownists, Separatists in the Kingdom. Nor can you persuade the world that bowing at the Name we mind not the Person. Nor are you able to prove that in this way of worship there can be Idolatry, unless the Disciples were Idolatrous when they fell on their faces and worshipped at the hearing of a Voice. Mat. 17.6.    


But they say, it is done to the Person, by bowing to the Name. I reply▪ (to pass by the censure of such a kind of worship; for so saith Bishop 
* In his Works, pag. 245.  Babington, an Idolater may excuse his Idolatry by this distinction of concomitancy) What they say is one thing, and how they expound the Text is another; according to their exposition of the Text, they cannot make that sense of it, except they add to the Text: so that according to their own grounds, they must make the worship either vain or Idolatrous.  
No marvel therefore that that judicious and learned Dr. Whitakers reckoning up sundry absurd interpretations, 
In his Answer to Sanders demonstration concerning Antichrist.  which the Papists make of the Scriptures, concludes with this their interpretation of this Text, from whom our superstitious-Iesu-worshippers had it, as the most absurd and grossest of all; and no marvel that famous Bishop 
* In his Works pag. 24●●  Babington, censures such to be justly given up of God to delusions, to believe lies, because they will not search for truth, Now I come to handle sundry Arguments against bowing at the Name Jesus.   

Answer.  
What Bishop Babington 
B. Babing. upon the 2 Common. p. 20.  saith, you meant not your Reader should see. Had you named in which Work of his, I might have found it. But in his Works Printed, 1637. in Folio, there is no such thing as concomitancy to be found in any 245. Page. Whether it be among his Questions and Answers upon the Second Commandment I know not, nor had I time to search. There it is most likely, and what he produceth there of Idolaters excusing their Idolatry, by saying they worship not the Image, but God in and under the Image, is nothing against us. For here is no Image graven, or that can be pensilled, unless you can, as Sir Edward Deering 
Sir E. Deer. Sect. 11. p. 86.  spoke, bring the object of one sense to fall under the distinguishment of another. When I see a voice, or a sound pictured, I shall be of your mind.  
We go no otherwise by the sound unto our Saviour, then by the hearing of the Word unto God. If we may worship God in his Word, why may we not honour jesus in his Name?  
Bishop Babington 
B. Babing. on 2. Arti, p. 196.  whatsoever you say, says nothing against this sense, where he reproveth the superstitious use of the literal word jesus.  
Doctor Whitakers denies not this reverence at the Name of jesus, but would have it done to the Name of God, and Christ also, saith Doctor Page. 
D. Page justify of how. p. 22.   
And here again let me put you in mind of your altering the Text. If the Reader observe it well he may prognosticate the downfall of your edifice. For at the foundation, and throughout the building, you turn the genitive case in the Text, into the case of the Name, and read it, at the Name jesus. Thus you have played the Juggler, stole the sense from the Name, beguiled the people, and put the theft impudently upon our Church.  
I have been large in answering your exposition, that when I shall hereafter labour to be brief, I may not be obscure to the Reader. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the Syllogism will be this.  
Where the face of the Text which literally is in analogy of the truth is most changed, there is most probability of error.  
But in interpreting the Name above every Name, Power and glory; at the Name of jesus, to the power of jesus; and bowing of the Knee, to be virtual, the face of the Text, which literally is in analogy to the truth, is most changed.  
Ergo. In that interpretation there it most probability of error.  
The Major is according to the rules of interpretation; the Minor is before demonstrated.  
And here let me conclude that you have not conferred your undertake and your strength, 
Senec. de Jran. c. 5.  Oprimat onus ferente majus.     

SECTION VI.  


EVery true interpretation of a Text, especially an obscure Text, must be warranted by Scripture, speaking of the same matter, or in the same phrases.  
But to affirm that the Name jesus in the Text of Phil. 2.9.10. is the Name above every Name, not only created but divine, and that therefore w● must bow at the sound of that Name, is not warranted by any correspondent Scriptures, speaking often of the same matter: Or to expound these phrases, Name above Names, made or given, to be the advancement of a naked proper Name above such Names, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Name of jesus, to be the Name jesus, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the Name, to be at the sound of the Name. None of these expositions are warranted by Scripture, speaking often in the same phrases.  
Ergo, Not one of these expositions which these superstitious jesu-worshippers make the ground of their opinion and practice, is a true expositition.  
Let the Minor be disproved if it can.  
The Major is proved from Rom. 12.6. If any Prophecy, let him Prophesy according to the proportion of faith. So 2 Pet, 1.20. No Scripture hath any private interpretation. It is an infallible rule set down by Divines for the understanding of the Scriptures. Thus saith learned Zanchius; 
Zanchius de Scriptura, pag. 422.  Altera interpretandi Scripturas regula est, etc. Another Rule, saith he, of interpreting the Scriptures, is a diligent & accurate comparing of the Scriptures, which are of the same thing one with another, that is, that we expound the more obsure Scriptures by those that are more evident and clear; for the Scripture is an interpreter of itself, than which a better cannot be found. And thus saith Austin, Non ita esse interpretandum unum locum, ut cum multis alijs pugnet, 
Aug. de Doctrinâ Christianâ.  sed ut cum multis alijs consentiat, We must not so understand one place that it disagree with many others, but that it agree with many others. This than their interpretation above mentioned, agrees with no place, but disagrees with all; it is therefore none of God's Truths.   

Answer.  
Your Major is false; must an obscure Text be warranted by Scripture speaking of the same, or in the same phrase? Suppose there be no more Texts of the same; may it not be known by examining it by the moral truth? What else intends the Apostle, Rom. 12.6. which you have induced for yourself? If any Prophecy, let him Prophesy according to the proportion of Faith. In the Greek it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which some render the measure, others the rule of faith.  
In the one the Apostle meeteth with the fault of these times: He would not have one man seem to know all things, but every one to keep within his proportion.  
In the other sense he teacheth the perfect canon of interpreting, viz. that examination be made, ad Christianae fidei axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Bez. in Annot.  according to the axioms of the Christian faith, which of themselves are to be believed.  
And what other rule doth Saint Peter 2 Epistle 1.20. prescribe? Were they, the first, and this, observed your Enthusiasms would not have broken forth among so many to help break the peace of the Church.  
But will Zanchius allow your assertion? His second rule is,  obscurae Scripturae per clariores interpretemur, that we should interpret the obscure by the more clear. Or will Saint Augustine, in saying one place may not disagree with many other, confirm your proposition? Nay, and that you have urged, makes against yourself. Your Authors will have the hard explained by the more easy, if more there be; if not, by the analogy of the universal faith.  
Your Minor is refelled in your former Section, and in my Antiteichisma.  
In your conclusion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and because you there show your Sophistry in such profane language, let your patience know that the Hebrew Proverb, 
Drus. ad lit. Vav.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vae malo, & vae illis qui adhaerent ei, secludes not you.     

SECTION VII.  


WHatsoever bowing is required by the Text, shall be necessarily performed by every Creature in Heaven, in Earth, and under the Earth.  
But bowing at the Name jesus, shall not be performed by every Creature in Heaven, in Earth, and under the Earth,  
Therefore Bowing at the Name Jesus, is not required by the Text.  
The Minor is plain, for to omit now to speak of Angels, Devils and dumb creatures, Bowing at the Name jesus, shall not be performed by the most men; for many Nations know not Christ, therefore cannot so bow all their life, famous Churches do not so bow. If this than be the true bowing, I would feign know, how, and at what time they shall perform it, that in this life perform it not.  
To deny the Major is absurd; for the Text is plain, that Christ is advanced to so high a Name, that every creature should bow to him in that name. 2: It is such a bowing, as there is also a demonstration that Christ is Lord, therefore if any creature shall be exempted from the bowing in the Text, Christ should not be their Lord, which would be derogatory to Christ's honour, and contrary to evident Scriptures; as Mat. 28, 19 Where all Power is given Christ, in Heaven, and Earth. And Heb. 1.2. where Christ is called Heir, that is, Lord of all things, Whereas then some answer that though every one shall not bow at the Name jesus, yet every one is bound to do it, they ought to perform it. I reply, if that bowing be the duty of the Text, every one of necessity must and shall do it. To affirm then, that the duty of the Text should be done of all, though it shall not, is all one as to affirm that Christ should be Lord of every creature, and it behoveth him so to be, though he shall not, If then bowing at the Name jesus shall not be performed of all, it is manifest, it is not required by the Text, for all Expositors hold generally, that the Text shall willingly or unwillingly be fulfilled of all.   

Answer.  
Your Major is true if by every creature you understand angels, men, and devils, as the Fathers have expounded it. See my Antiteichisma.  
But if you intent it of all rationals, sensitives, vegetatives, infects, minerals, all whatsoever, you bring in more than comes within the scope of the Apostles doctrine.  
The Texts you urge for proof, were cited to the same, and to as little purpose before. Sect. 3. Where I declared that the Hebrew word, at Isa. 45.23. and the Greek, at Rom. 14.11. Phil. 2.10. for bowing, are not in these Texts. And my Answer is, that if in your citations an universal subjection be expressed, in the three parallel places a special duty is enjoined. I said, that if, for I question your sense very much of Heb. 1.2. Because Saint chrysostom 
Chrysost. in Heb. 1.2.  interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of all Nations, But be it as you will, you are answered, till it is proved that bowing at Phil. 2.10. is not a sign of our reasonable submission.  
Your method is distorted; for you have brought the rest to the Major, which might have been an anticipation at the Minor. Thither I go, and there is amphibolia in the subject. You mind the bare Name, and we, according to the Text, the Name of jesus. In this sense all reasonable creatures, and they only shall perform it.  
The objection you make is answered in my Antiteich. Tract. 5. pag. 47. 48. & Tract. 6. pag. 58.  
But you have in the supply of your Major proposition saved the labour. You say in our behalf, and to make way for a reply, that every one is bound to do it, though everyone shall not do it.  
I thank you Sir, and now give me leave to do something, per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will, for you.  
Be your ambition, for your piety, honesty, and learning, advanced to a Patriarch-ship in some Terra Florida, where ignorance of evil shall do more good than knowledge of virtue.  
Our answer is, all aught to perform it, though all do it not. The Text is a fulfilling now, but at last shall, by all voluntarily, or involuntarily be perfectly accomplished.  
The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was your own, and being it was, your reply is lost.  
When Mercurius had deprived Typhon of his subtlety, he then lay weltering in his blood. All he could do was to send his winding brood to infest those weaklings, that were newly brought forth of the Eggs, that the Eagle laid in jupiters' lap. One of them I am sure is in the next Sect. for it runs out of his very veins. See it the●e.     

SECTION VIII.  


WHatsoever Bowing is required by the Text, shall be performed by every creature at the day of judgement.  
But bowing at the Name jesus shall not be performed by every creature at the day of judgement.  
Therefore bowing at the Name jesus, is not required by the Text.  
The Major is confirmed by evident parallel Scriptures, as, Rom. 14.10.11. Why dost thou judge and condemn thy brother? We shall all appear before the Judgement seat of Christ: As it is written, Every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to me▪ So Heb. 2.8. The Apostle affirming there, That all things are put in subjection to Christ, yet saith, We do not yet see all things put under him, that is, perfectly, which perfection shall not be till the last day. The jews shall then be fully subject to him, that now scorn him. Infidel's shall then perfectly be subdued to him, that now know him not. Devils and Reprobates shall then feel their fullest destruction. 
* Cor. 15.26▪  Death shall then fully bow, being overcowe in regard of the Saints, and it being it its fullest vigour in regard of Christ's enemies. The Saints shall then wholly bow, yielding themselves perfectly to the honour of Christ, which now they cannot do by reason of corruption, 
* Rev. 20.13.  Hell, and the Grave, shall then bow by yielding up the dead: But what need I further illustrate this Truth, it is generally acknowledged by the most and best Expositors, both ancient and modern. Confessed also by the Champions for bowing at the Name jesus, as 
* Serm. on Phil. 2.9.10.  Bishop Andrew's, and 
* Page 48:  M. Page, who in his Treatise of justification of bowing, understands the Text of the general subjection of all Creatures to Christ at the great day of judgement, and is forward to allege many Authors for it, as Theophilact, Anselme, Aquinas, Illyricus, Hunnius, and Hyperius, Salmeron, Zanchius. and Estius, and tells us that he could cite twice as many more, if he pleased, The Major therefore is undeniable.   

Answer.  
Here is Petitio principii, a Syllogism of the same matter, form, and circumstance with the former. The difference only is in words. Instead of every creature the exegesis is fallen upon the copula, shall be performed.  
I grant the Major with the limitation of the former. Your first proof is right: And, me thinks applying Rom. 14.10.11. to this Text you should not vary from the sense of Christ's economical Kingdom, which he holds by dispensation. At Heb. 2.8. 1 Cor. 15.26. Rev. 20.13. contrary to your rule of interpretation, Sect. 6. you go from the phrase and sense of Phil. 2.10. For the question is not whether all shall be subject, but whether all of the three ranks celestial, terrestrial, and infernal, shall, at the day of Judgement, bow the Knee, or make outward expression at the Name of Jesus?  
The Texts 1 Cor. 15.25. Mat. 8.29. and the Authors D. Page citeth conclude a full subjection: But neither doth the Reverend Bishop, nor D. Page infer all manner of creatures sensible, and insensible, at Phil. 2.10. Your flout, of Champions, is but a flirt of your envy, and for it takes this, Omnibus invideas, invide nemo tibi.    


For the Minor, I never read any yet in Print to affirm, that we shall all bow at the Name jesus at the day of judgement. Master Page indeed coasteth towards is, but speaks not out plainly. For thus he answereth the Argument taken from the day of judgement: 
* justification of bowing, pag. 95. & alibi.  Though all shall be subject to Christ then, yet shall not we be subject before we needs must? and declare our subjection by our bowing at the Name of jesus, for subjection doth not exclude but include bowing. It shall be true of all knees then, but it must be verified of some knees now.  
I agree with him in this, that there is a present equity of the Text: I consent to M. Calvin, who saith, though the Kingdom of Christ be not perfect till the day judgement, yet it is begun already, and increaseth daily 
* Regnum Christi crescit in dies, perfectio vero non constabitante ultimum diem. Calv. in Phil. 2. ●. 10. . Christ hath now all things under his feet, and all Creatures are at his Rule and beck, and must and shall fulfil, not their own will, but the will of Christ, though they shall not be perfectly subdued till the last day. But yet M. Pages inference is not to the purpose, for to affirm that because we must be all subject to Christ at the day of judgement, therefore we must declare our subjection by bowing at the Name jesus, is all one as to affirm, because servants must be subject to their Masters, that they must show their subjection by bowing at their Master's Name; or because wives must be subject to their husbands, therefore they must make a curtsy at the Name of their husbands, But if M, Page will speak to the purpose, he must say thus; Because all creatures shall declare their subjection by bowing at the Name jesus at the last day, accordingly we must now witness our subjection. This inference is right, if he can prove his ground; but that lies upon the proof: Of necessity our present bowing must be according to the future: the parts must be according to the whole; the perfect bowing must regulate the imperfect; therefore if bowing at the Name jesus shall not be performed at that day, it concerns none so to bow now.   

Answer.  
In the Minor you keep a foot the amphibolia, the Name Jesus, for the Name of Jesus. I am sure you never read any in Print till these last times, that ever translated the Name of Jesus like you.  
But what if you have not yet read any, save D. Page, who coasteth toward, as you say, but speaks not out plainly that we shall bow at the Name of Jesus in the day of Judgement: must it not therefore be? Can you show me any one of any antiquity, that writes against it?  
You can agree with D. Page, that there is present equity of the Text; and with M. Calvin, that the Kingdom of Christ is begun, and increaseth daily, though it shall not be perfect till the last day. Is there a present equity; shall it begin here, be fulfilled hereafter, and is it not a duty at the last? A perfect 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, your luck is better than your art, if you reconcile these.  
Nor doth your saying that servants show not their subjection by bowing at their Master's Name, nor Wives at their husbands infringe the learned Doctor's tenet, but makes you ridiculous. Is their any comparison between the highest Name of God, and the Name of sinful man? Yet a good Servant will honour the Name of his Master, and a loving Wife the Name of her husband. In what high esteem than ought his Name to be, that gave himself to save sinners?  
But you will teach D. Page to speak to the purpose, will you? very well: yet you understand not what you speak. He said, as you express before, It shall be true of all knees then, but it must be verified of some knees now. You affirm that because all creatures declare their subjection by bowing at the Name Jesus at the last day, accordingly we must now witness our subjection. This is right to you, and not the other. Would you have all men say in Saint Egidius? Have you done any more, than put the same sense into other, and more words? See here is nothing, save, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the fallacy of a babbler. And your babble runs to make the more ignorant believe that the duty shall not be performed at the general day, and therefore ought not to be regarded now. Yet I can tell you that faith shall not be in life eternal, yet who will come there, must believe here.    

Some to whom I have put this Argument, and finding it too hot for them, stand to it to affirm that bowing at the Name jesus shall be fulfilled at the day of judgement, but they cannot prove it otherwise than by seeking shelter at this Text. If any such assertion shall ever come in Print, 
Affirmanti incumbit probatio.  I am confident that every judicious Reader will smile at it, if not grieve to see the wilfulness of such men, that rather than they will yield to the truth, will justify such dangerous Paradoxes. I will therefore by God's assistance encounter with it, and I think I shall upon better reasons disprove it, than they can ever prove it.  

Answer.  
Have you put it to some; who are they? But if you have, are you sure it was too hot for them? What? too hot, because they take shelter at the Text? Is not this enough, whilst it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in, with the moral truth of the third Commandment, and our Lords first Petition? If there were no more to be said then this, this would be opprobrium negantis, and make the impartial Reader embase you for your peremptory denial. You have the congruence of the phrase, Sect. 4. and if you would have more, see my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 61. 62. When this is compared with that, it will be so clear from the hazard of a dangerous paradox, that any man, save he that loves wrangling, will say you are jurgii seminator.  
You think you shall disprove it: do, if you can, and when you cannot, let your excellency be seen in petulant denying most.    

First, There is no Scripture for it, and it is in no wise to be imagined that so many clear Scriptures speaking so fully and plainly of the judgement day, and of the deportment of those that shall then appear, should say nothing of this ceremony of bowing at the Name jesus, if it were then to be done.  

Answer.  
Is there no Scripture for it? No? Is Phil. 2.10. no Scripture? And are there not many Texts in congruity with it? See 2 Thess. 1.10.12. where it is said, That in the Day of Judgement the Name of our Lord Jesus shall be glorified in us, and we in him. All Expositors understand, Isa. 45.23. Rom. 14.11. of the general Day too: and in both those places, the very same word is used; in the first, by the Septuagint; in the second, by the Apostle, which is here. But if there were no other Text for it, can any be produced against it? Any, or nigh so clear, as there are many for it? If there be, I will yield all.    

Secondly, To what end shall the Name jesus be sounded out at that day, that all shall bow at the sound of it? When he shall then appear 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. Mat. 25.37.44.  

Answer.  
Is this a Disproof? a Demand rather. Be it what you will: it seems you are ignorant, and would be informed. Read the 11. Verse of Phil. 2. and there it is plain, that every tongue shall confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. That is the end, and there is open confession, I'll warrant. For the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signifies speaking out. See my Antiteich. Tract. 7. & Tract. 9 That's the utmost end, and the other is in respect of ourselves; because there is no other Name wherein we are saved, Act. 4.12.  
Your argument, That Christ shall come as Lord to all, therefore not as jesus, is very false; and the simple people are abused by your misapplying the Text, Mat. 25.37.44. For, who is Lord, save Jesus? And Jesus, being the Saviour of us, is the confounding Jesus of his and our enemies.    

Thirdly, It is absurd to imagine that the Holy Ghost would describe the perfection of Christ's Kingdom, only by such a gesture as a child can perform at the mention of his Father.  

Answer.  
You are very childishly absurd in your asseveration. We are not of those Heretics, to whom, as Saint chrysostom says, the bowing of the knee was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the full glory of Christ's Kingdom. This is of, not all the perfection it hath.    

Fourthly, Bishop Andrew's, 
On Phil. 2.9.10.  the late Father of the corporal bowing at the Name jesus, will confute it by a saying of his. He is exalted, to whose Person knees do bow; His Person is taken out of our sight, all that we can do, will not reach to it, but his Name he hath left behind him to us, that we may show by our reverence and respect to it, how much we est●eme him. If then we must now bow to the Name, because the Person of Christ is out of our sight; than it follows that when Christ shall manifest his Person, there will be no time, or place, for bowing at the Name. (But by the Bishop's reason, seeing he acknowledgeth the fulfilling of the Text at the day of judgement, it will follow that Christ, shall send out his Name at that day, to have it sounded out, that all should bow at it, and not come himself in Person, or else if then he come in Person, he must leave his Name behind him, and so the duty of the Text shall not be fulfilled. Again, It is very absurd to affirm that our worship will teach to the Name, but not to the Person of Christ; for shall veneration and honour reach to a bare Name as it is sounded out by the breath of man, who is less than nothing? Isa 40.17. And can no worship reach to the Person, who besides that he is in the glory of the Father in the heavens as man, also is every where present by his infinite Deity, and especially present in and among his Saints by his Spirit?)  

Answer.  
The Reverend and learned Bishop Andrewet is the late furtherer, if you please, no late Father of the corporal bowing at the Name of jesus. He gives a reason why, at the Name; because his Person is out of our sight, that we respecting his Name, might show our high esteem of him.  
Doth it therefore follow, that when Christ appears he shall be without a Name, or his Name not acknowledged his? By the same argument, all his Attributes of chief Glory shall be taken from him. You found the same inconsequence in it, or else would have prosecuted it, as you use, where a Sophister may hid himself.  
Another you have, and this is it: If the Bishop's reason be good, than Christ shall send out his Name at that Day to be bowed at, and not come himself in person; or if he come in person, he must leave his Name behind him.  
What Chemical nonsense is here? More worthy of the hiss, than a Pen. He shall neither send his Name from himself, nor come himself without his Name. He calls himself by that Name now he is in glory, Act. 9.5. Rev. 22.16. and with that Name will come in judgement. For, the Day is the revelation of the Lord jesus, 2 Thess. 1.7.  
In your third absurdity, you abuse the Reverend Bishop's phrase, applying the word reach to worship, which he applieth to the sight. And the answer is, Christ's person is out of the reach of our sight, not out of the reach of our worship.  

M. T. Cic. pro L. Cor,  What advantage you have of the Learned, I pray hold: Est huius seculi labes quaedam, & macula virtuti invidere; and it is your infirmity, or deformity, to envy his worth.    

Names be signs, and a kind of Images of things or Persons represented by them. An Idolater bewes to an Image, which he doth see, because he deems that it represents unto him the Person, whom he adores, which he cannot see; whereas if the Person were present before him, he would never bow to the Image. The Name jesus is as it were the sign or Image of our Saviour, it would be therefore worse than Idolatry itself to bow to Christ's Image before his own face.  

Answer.  
Names are metaphorical Images, not material. Being forbidden to worship God in the likeness of any creature by the Second Commandment; we are commanded to honour him in his Name at the third.  
I know not what Idolaters would do, if the Person were in presence of the Image; but sure I am, your argument is profane. viz. Idolaters would not bow to the Image, if the Person were in presence, therefore 'tis worse than Idolatry itself to bow at, and confess the Name of jesus before his face. Had you spoken thus of Jehovah before a Jew, he would have thrown a stone in your face.    


If any shall yet infer, that though all other Scriptures say nothing for the bowing at the Name jesus at the judgement day, yet it is enough that it be specified in one Text, as (viz.) in this present Text of Phil. 2, 9.10. I answer, it is utterly against reason to imagine, that if bowing at the Name jesus were to be done at the judgement day, that the holy Ghost would omit to specify it in so many clear places, treating of the judgement day, and would set it down in an obscure Text (that treats not plainly of the judgement day, but as it must be enlightened by other clear Scriptures) and that in such words, and phrases, that are different in sense to all those words and phrases in other Scriptures, though often therein used.  
Oh! It highly concerns us in season to provide Oil in our Lamps, that we may meet Christ with comfort at that great day, and not to be like children, (as Bishop Babington 
B. Babing. in his Works, pag. 246.  well notes) playing with letters, and syllables, and adoring Titles with that honour, which is due to the Person. I● is Satan's policy to exercise men with trifles, that he may steal away their hearts from that which is necessary, as woeful experience proves too true in such as are addicted to this will-worship.   

Answer.  
What's here was before at first; and there answered. The Holy Ghost as it pleased him expressed the duty in this Text; and so, that he who hath a will may run, and read. What need of clearer places, when none can be more plain. Plain in the letter, and the letter sure in the analogy; no way dissonant, firmly grounded on the fudamentall truth.  
Oh! It highly concerns you who have spread abroad your Papers in defiance of the Church, and against the plain Text: It concerns you to search into yourself; Oh search, and what by weeping you cannot do, by public recantation undo what you can. It is treason to clip the Kings Coin; and is it a light matter to alter Gods? At the Name of jesus, you have hitherto read at the Name jesus: and like one of the children, tha● Bishop Babington notes, played with the word till you ha●e lost the sense.    


To this, I will subjoin two other Arguments.  
Whatsoever bowing is required by the Text, shall not be fully perfected till the day of judgement.  
But bowing at the Name jesus may be fully perfected before, for many can now make a perfect low courtesy at the sound of that Name, even almost to the ground.  
Ergo, Bowing at the Name jesus, is not required by the Text 
* The bowing which the Saints shall perform at the Day of judgement, is their perfection, for then the image of God shall be perfectly restored to them. Hence it will follow, that if bowing at the Name jesus be that bowing, seeing the Saints in this life must strive toward perfection, that all their striving must be, how to make the fairest Curtsies at the Name jesus. .  
Whatsoever bowing is required in the Text, is already begun by every creature, as I have proved before.  
But corporal bowing at the Name jesus, is not practised in the least degree by the most of the creatures.  
Ergo, This bowing is not required in the Text.   

Answer.  
In the first, omitting the amphibolia, the Minor is false. The same was at thirdly before, and there answered. The Marginal note is a dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter; and being added to your conclusion, makes the fallacy there plurium interrogationum also.  
In the second the Major is false, and not yet proved true, nor will be by you.  
To the Minor I answer, if you understand by creatures, all sorts in the Creation, it is not required. But if you mind rational creatures only, it is answered before, that if it be not begun it ought to be, and you confess it is by some.  
Hitherto your great labour hath thrived ill. Faber in cìppo sedet quem sua manu fecit.     

SECTION IX.  


WHatsoever exposition of a Text will infer an inequality of worship between the three Persons of the Trinity is false.  
But so to expound the Text, as before mentioned, will infer an inequality of worship between the three Persons of the Trinity.  
Ergo. It is a false Exposition.  
The Major is plain, because the three Persons being co-aquall, aught to have a coequal worship, agreeable to John 5.23. Every one must honour the Son as they honour the Father.  
The Minor is plain, for they by their exposition of the said Text Phil. 2.9.10. do infer a bowing at one of the Titles of the Son, which they do not practise at the Titles of any other Person.   

Answer.  
The Minor is false. Bowing at the Name of jesus doth not infer an inequality of worship.  
In your proof you go fallaciously to work. Not distinguishing the Name and the relations, or not minding one essential Name of the three, you insinuate, that the bowing at the Name of jesus makes the Son more honourable than the Father.  
If it were the Name of the relation we bowed at, there might be some ground for you, yet, if you would learn to consider the dispensation, not much.  
Know then, that one God is the Trinity, and that this S. Trinity, which is one God, nec recedit a numero, nec capitur numero, neither recedes from, nor is contained by number: Not from number; because the Persons are ad invicem; and in that they are in se, they are without number. So one essential Name pertains to this Holy Trinity, which cannot be plural to the three Persons. This is the determination of the Council of Toledo. 
Concil. Tolet. 11.     

The answer given to this reason is twofold. First they affirm, that they worship all alike in Spirit and Truth, and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, translated (even as) in john 5.23. doth intent only a trueness of worship, not every way an equal correspondency. I reply, that the Persons being equal, must have an equal worship; and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be there taken for the selfsame worship in likeness and kind, because praise, and glory, and honour, is due to God, Rom. 11. last. If to God, then to every Person in Trinity, because every Person i● God. We are to serve God with our bodies, as well as with our souls; outward honour is true honour as well as that which is inward. If then all honour both outward and inward be to be done to God, not any honour must be performed to one Person, that must not be performed to another; therefore if we be bound to honour the Son by bowing at his Name, we are also bound to honour the Father by bowing to his, but if we be not bound so to honour the Father, neither are we so bound to honour the Son. For the exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (even as) in john 5. 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquam i. e. pari eodem planè honore, qu● & omnes patrem honorant, & paulo ante. Quibus aequalis imo modis omnibus idem debetur honour. Zanchius de tribu● Elohim parte priore. l. 4. c, 2. p. 93●  Zanchius saith thus; Even as they honour the Father, that is, (I say) saith he, with the like self same honour plainly, wherewith all honour the Father: and a little before, to whom, saith he, an equal, yea every way the self same honour is due.  

Answer.  
See now whether the answer, which I made, when you propounded the question first to me▪ though suddenly given, do, and and ever will, stand right or no?  
This it was: The Son ought to be honoured, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Father; that is, with one and the same worship, as truly and perfectly as the Father is: and this I told you was Orthodox. Said I more, or said I less.  
Your reply was then, that you would write your mind; and so after three year's study in the question you have. What ere it is, a Monster it, that was so long in hatching. It seems beautiful in the face, 
Horat. de or. poet.  Sed turpiter atrum desinit in piscem.  
You confess, that the Persons being equal, must have an equal worship, and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be there taken for the self same worship, outward, and inward. Because every Person is God. Whence you infer, if we be bound to honour the Son at his Name, we are also bound to honour the Father by bowing to his. If not the one, than not the other. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the self same honour plainly.  
Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you have changed the principle, and are gone from the Name to the relation. The question is not whether we are bound to bow at the Name of the Son, that is when the Son is named, or at the Name of the Father, that is, when the Father is named: We may do all if we please, for not being expressly commanded, 'tis no no where forbidden.  
But the question is, whether bowing at the Name of jesus the Persons be equally honoured, or no?  
You cannot prove they are not, I'll show you how they are.  
Compared ad invicem they are three, in se one. The essential Name, being not plural to the three, is one and the same to every one, and all. Our worship then of any one makes no inequality among the three, which are so one in themselves, that one cannot be another save in relation one to another. For he that honours the Son, honours the Father, and who honours not the Son, honours not the Father, as in the same verse, joh. 5.23. and 12.45.46.  
You have therefore slandered us here egregiously, in affirming with impudency, and nonsense enough, that we intent by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a trueness of worship, not every way an equal correspondency. I tell you once more, and remember it always, That our not bowing at the Name of the Father, nor at the Name of the Son, nor at the Name of the Holy-Ghost, but at the Name of jesus, shows, that they, being three one to another, are but one in themselves, and that our Salvation was wrought equally by them three, though terminated only in the Son. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9 p. 93.    

Secondly, They answer, that they do not put a difference between the Three Persons, for by bowing at the Name jesus, they worship all the three Persons in one, because they cannot be divided. I reply: Though they cannot be divided, yet they may be distinguished, and that in their worship too; else that place of john were to no purpose. S. Steven calls upon Christ personally, and distinctly, Act. 7.59. So doth S. Paul upon the Father, Ephes. 3.14. And the distinct Names of each Person, do not personally denote the other Persons, as when I say, I believe in God the Father, I do not in that Article say, I believe in God the Son. If then these men say, that they honour every Person alike personally at the Name Jesus, which they must say, if they say any thing, they confound the Persons: For the Person of the Father is not in the Person of the Son, nor the Person of the Son in the Person of the Father, etc. but the Persons are distinguished: Every Person is in one Divine Essence, and the whole Essence in every Person: Therefore the Name jesus being a proper Name to the second Person, and not the Name of the first, or third Person, cannot denominate, but only the second Person, And it is plain, that the Name above every Name in the Text, is only proper to the second Person, because the second Person only was humbled, therefore the second Person only received this Name.  

Answer.  
To that answer you reply thus: Though they cannot be divided, yet the Persons may be distinguished, and in their worship too, Act. 7.59. Eph. 3.14. True, they may; yea, they must be distinguished: yet Saint Stephen, calling on Christ personally, and distinctly, minds him essentially, as that God which is the blessed Trinity. And so doth Saint Paul, bowing his knees to the Father of our Lord jesus Christ.  
But you say, that the distinct Names of each Person do not personally denote the other Persons.  
Do they not so? Where is your Logic? Where your Metaphysics? Have you forgot, that what a Father, as a Father is, he only is in respect of his Son? So a Son, as a Son, is that he is in respect of his Father. The Father therefore cannot be conceived without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, nor the Holy Ghost without them both; nor any one without another: because what every one is, is in relation to one another. Yet one is not another; that is, the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Holy Ghost. Naming then the Father, I confess a distinction of Persons, but apprehend not the one without the other.  
And here I tell you, that you, saying you do believe in God the Father, and not saying you do believe in God the Son, must insinuate the Son, or else you are a Tritheite.  
Your inference next that we honouring every Person alike, at the Name of jesus, confound the Persons, shows that you never read, or would not heed the Orthodox rule of ascending the glorious Trinity by his Son. Who ever saw, or ever shall see the Father, save in the face of the Son? joh. 14.7.10. Heb. 1.3. And I pray, what face is next to us save his Name? The Jews in the Name of Jehovah adored, and by the same gracious dispensation do we at the Name of jesus honour God.  
Nor doth this make the Person of the Father in the Person of the Son, as you boldly argue, but declares that God, who is the blessed Trinity, will, and no way else, be worshipped according to his good pleasure in, and through jesus Christ. Nor doth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Fathers say, whereby the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, seclude distinction, but disjunction.  
In that you say every Person is in one divine essence, you seem to be a Triformian. For if every Person were in one essence, there would be, ter una, thrice one essence: yet this is true that the whole essence is in every Person. You should therefore have said, every Person is in unity of essence.  
Nor doth it therefore follow, that the Name of jesus being proper to the Second Person, and not the Name of the first, or third, can denominate but the Second only. For the Name is not proper to the Second Person, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sed per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But if it were, do not relations denominate ad invicem, the Father the Son, the Son the Father, the Father and the Son the Holy Ghost? The Name then proper to the Second, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as terminating the work of the salvation in him, distinguisheth all, and declares all to be one, Nor will this seem strange, if you recall that God did ever discover himself in the Person of his Son. Deny it, and you deny the whole Worship of God.    


From whence I argue, look as the Son is personally honoured, so must the Father be.  
But the Son is personally honoured by bowing at his Name. Ergo, So must the Father be. Or the Father is not personally honoured by bowing at his Name. Therefore the Son must not be so honoured.  
I grant, that the honour of the Son is essentially the honour of all the three Persons, because every Person is the selfsame God; according to joh. 5.24. But here the Question is of the Persons, not of the Essence: But let us reason from the Essence it makes against them.  
They that honour the Son, as they honour the Father, must so honour the Son in the Father, as they honour the Father in the Son.  
But when they honour the Son in the Father, they do not bow at the Name of the Father. Therefore when they honour the Father in the Son, they must not bow at the Name of the Son; for if they do, how do they honour the Son, as they honour the Father?   

Answer.  
Your two Syllogisms be false; in the one are quatuor termini, the other is in quarta figura, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both. All the force you could make to uphold these, were cut off before. And to do it, I must confess, you constrained me to climb where I tremble to think. The direction I took, was from the Scriptures and the Church. If I have mistaken, I shall not blush to learn. Qui legit, 
Aug. de Trin. l. 1● c. 3.  ubi errorem suum cognoscit, redeat ad me; ubi meum, revocet me. Let the Reader, where he finds his own error, return to me, where mine, recall me.     

SECTION X.  


GOd will not require that duty of any of his creatures, to whom he hath not created power of performance: I say created, to prevent an Objection.  
But if corporal bowing at the Name jesus, be enjoined of God to all the creatures, he should require that of the most of his creatures, to whom he hath not created power of performance.  
Therefore it is none of God's injunctions.  
The first part of the Argument cannot be denied without blasphemy, by imputing cruelty to Almighty God.   

Answer.  
Your Syllogism is in quarta figura, and that is sufficient answer to it. Howsoever you have tumbled it forth, this is it.  
God will not require that duty of all his creatures, which most have not power to perform.  
But most of his creatures have not power to bow at the Name of jesus.  
Ergo. To bow at the Name of jesus, is not required of all his creatures.  
Here is prae. sub. the medium is the praedictate in the Major, and the subject of the Minor, and therefore concludes against nature. Beside, ex puris negativis vi formae nihil concluditur.  
If this be not, you shall have enough. To the first part therefore I answer. God gave to all of whom he requires. If any fail, look they to it. He that pleads excuse multiplies his fault. Yet 'tis no Blasphemy to say that God requires▪ where he gives not special grace. No cruelty Sir, but his austere justice. Luke 19.21.22.23.    

The second part is also very plain. For what power have mere sensitive and insensitive creatures, to bow at the Name jesus, as Sheep, and Oxen, Stones, and Minerals, Trees, and Plants; which neither have knees to bow, ears to hear, hearts to understand when jesus is named. What, shall not these be subject to Christ, till jesus be named? or shall it be greater then, than at another time? how senseless will this be? The true bowing, which is the bowing of subjection, as I have showed, is already performed in some degree, by all the creatures together at once. But bowing at the Name jesus, cannot be done by all at once; suppose we understand it only of rational creatures; for how can the Angels, and glorified Saints, understand when jesus is named on Earth? How can we on Earth hear, when jesus is named in Heaven? How can those under the Earth know, when jesus is named in Heaven or Earth? How can those in Heaven and Earth know, when jesus is named in Hell; or could it be known, were it fit then to bow? Yea, how can we hear, when jesus is named in another Congregation? But grant it be referred to one particular place, how can it be done? How shall things in Heaven bow at the Name jesus, when they have the Person of Christ with them which by B. Andrew's assertion, before specified, would be unseasonable to be the● performed.  

Answer.  
The first demand at this second part is answered before Sect. 3. No creatures are called to this account, save those which have a faculty thereto.  
Secondly, I deny not the subjection of all creatures, but aver that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the bowing of the Knee in the Text is peculiar to the reasonable only. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 53.  
Thirdly, we men perform it, or aught in our circumstances; the rest in theirs. Sect. 5.  
Fourthly, the heavenly having the Person with them, bow in the sense of the Name. His Name is on their foreheads, and they in full subjection unto him. See Sect. 8. and my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 62.    

How shall deaf men bow at the Name jesus, who cannot hear it pronounced? What, shall not they fulfil the Text as well as others? Seeing no creature is excepted. Is not Christ Lord of them as well as of others? How shall young Infants bow at the Name jesus, to whom God's Kingdom belongs as to others?  

Answer.  
This is the fifth, and I retort it. How shall deaf men hear the Word, or Infants be taught it? This then concludes that we are but in the way unto perfection, and no more.    


How shall things in Hell bow at the Name jesus? To speak first of Devils which come into our Congregations, how if they had knees, shall they bow at the Name jesus? These Devils tremble, say some, because of jesus, but trembling is not bowing. 2. Shall they tremble more at the Name jesus, than Christ, or jehovah? It were senseless to imagine it. How shall the damned Souls in Hell bow at the Name jesus? After what manner shall jesus be named in Hell? There is no Church there, no divine service there, which is the place and season, these men say, of this bowing. There is nothing in Hell, but blaspheming, what shall they blaspheme, and then bow, if they had bodies? most ridiculous; what shall they not fulfil the Text in Hell, and be under Christ's power, until jesus be named? then they might ease their torment by forbearing the mention of that Name; Seeing in hell they can do nothing but blaspheme, how shall they bow?  
The Bowers at the Name jesus do maintain, that when men swear by jesus, 
Page justification of Bowing.  it is no time and place for bowing, yet the worst manner of naming jesus on earth, is better than the best in hell; therefore there is no time and place for it in hell; yet must things in hell fulfil the Text, therefore it cannot be the meaning of the Text, to bow at the Name jesus.   

Answer.  
Here is a sixth Quaere, and it is found thus. The Devils shall bow, as they did confess, Mat. 8.29. Act. 19.15. and tremble most at that Name wherein they were conquered. Nor is it a trembling only; they lie bound flat on their faces, and in fetters of his eternal wrath.  
Seventhly, though in Hell there be no Church, nor Divine Service, yet without repentance, the blasphemers of God, his Church, and Divine Service, shall in that Dungeon of Slavery answer his justice. Tarditatem supplicii gravitate pensat, he that delays, if there be not amends, strikes home at last.  
Eighthly, Bowing there and blaspheming will consist. For they blaspheme, because it cannot otherwise be, but they must so bow.  

Sphinx Theologico. philos. c. 38.  Lastly, as Bias said to the Question, Quid apud inferos esset, quidque ibi ageretur? so do I, Nec ego eo unquam iut, nec cum quoquam illinc reverso sum collocutus; I know not, nor ever shall, I hope, how the Name of jesus is blasphemed in Hell; most despitefully sure: and I am sure it is on your side too profanely handled often. And though here be not Hell, hellish acts are here; and unhappily at, not in them, we may have a heart to honour jesus, when our knees cannot bow without a Scandal. The duty is well done on our part, if we reprove the faulty, or avoid the company.     

SECTION XI.  


THe aforesaid exposition of the said Text, will make us serve God in bondage. Therefore it is an untrue and false Exposition.  
The Consequent is plain, for Christ hath brought us to liberty, and made us free, Gal. 5.1. in which freedom we are commanded to stand fast.   

Answer.  
Your consequence I deny not: but in your way of proof there is anguis in latebra.  
The Text Gal. 5.1. is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. Persist in that liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free. What freedom's this? Libertinism? No: then we should be free from Christ. He is an easy yoke. Mat. 11.30.  
Is it from obedience to Authority? you would this; but this cannot be. The Apostle wills every soul to be subject unto the higher powers. Rom. 13.1.  
Is it from conformity in God's service? This, this is it: Your bondage, your burden. Yet S. Paul commands all things to be done decently, and in order. 1 Cor. 14.40.  
God's Spirit contradicts not himself. There is something else we must stand in, and unto, even to ascribe our justification, 
Chrysost. in loc. August. in Evang. joh. tract. 41.  to the only merits of Christ. For verse 4. 'tis so expounded, As many as are justified by the Law are fallen from grace. And so the Fathers, S. chrysostom, S. Augustine, etc. understand it. Servi eramus sed redempti sumus, to our redemption we stand and fast in this.    

That it will bring us again into bondage it is plain, for it will tie the service of God to every man's will, be they never so vile, for whensoever jesus is Named by whomsoever, if this exposition be true, we must bow; yea therefore it will bring guilt of sin upon the souls of every one, that shall at any time hea●e this Name jesus Named, and not bow. By this means Christ shall bring us into greater bondage, than the bondage of the Ceremonial Law, from which he delivered his Church. To this I will subjoin another Argument. It will bring the Spirit of God into bondage. Therefore it is a wicked opinion. I prove it from john 3.8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, i. c. The Spirit of God worketh when and where he pleaseth, and not at our pleasure. All the holy actions of a Christian are wrought by the Holy Ghost, therefore by this exposition, the work of the Holy Ghost will be enthralled to the will of every man, yea of vile men also.  

Answer.  
Your antecedent doth miscarry. The foresaid exposition brings us not into bondage. Outward acts are limited by circumstances, a●d according to the Scriptures, the Church hath set them well. Sect. 5. And the outward being nothing without the inward, that including this, the inward may be performed, even when we hear the Name of Jesus profaned. Sect. 10.  
Yet if any, when it is upon good occasion, show respect unto it, 
justif. of bowing, pag. 11.  D. Page will not mislike it, nor shall I Pearls should not 〈◊〉 cast before Swine, but Swine may be driven from them. The reverence than is to rebuke, or to avoid, and this comes within the compass of bowing the knee too. For that gesture may imply any outward. See my Antiteich. Tract. 5. p. 47. If this be bondage we must give over the service of God. Because we cannot live here, and not live among sinners. And yet living among them we partake not of, unless we live in their sins. There is no bondage then, there can be none in the duty, nor would the reverence be held cheap, if such, as you, were more sparing in the light use of the Name.  
The argument which you subjoin, were it of force, would fall by that which goes before. joh. 3.8. The wind bloweth where it listeth, the holy Spirit is free; therefore bowing at the Name brings the Spirit into bondage.  
'Tis true, all holy motions, and actions are from the Holy Ghost; and, I trow, 'tis no unholy thing to show even outwardly our dislike of the vile usage of Jesus. And if this be bowing also, how is the Holy Ghost enthralled? or is not he obeyed, when his will is followed? Nay, you enthrall the Holy Ghost, or you, unless you may be, ad placitum, without the control even of the Holy Ghost are enthralled.    


The answer which they give to this, hath no weight in i●; they make use here of this Rule, Precepta affirmativa, &c, Affirmative Precepts do always bind, but not to all times. Therefore say they, we are not bound to do it, but when the Church order it, viz. In time of Divine Service and Sermons. I reply, this rule holds in those Precepts, the time of performance whereof is not determined in the Word, but it cannot hold in this place; For as these men expound the Text, the time is apppointed when this bowing shall be performed, viz. At the mention of the Name jesus. Therefore it is a sin at any time to name it, or hear it named, and not to bow, God's unlimited Commands cannot be limited, therefore the Church limiting it to a time, could not ground it on God's Command. The Name jesus is the same Name at one time, or place, as at another, It cannot be proved in the whole Book of God, but when God determined a time of doing any thing, but that it bond ordinarily at that time. When a Master shall say to his servant, at my calls you shall answer, and give attendance. When his Master shall call, and 〈◊〉 give no attendance, is not he disobedient? Would it be a good excuse for 〈◊〉 to tell his Master, That he is not bound to wait upon him, but only 〈◊〉 the Table: So if God shall say, At the sound of the Name jesus you shall bow; 〈◊〉 they hear is often mentioned, and will not bow, do they not break 〈◊〉 command? Will it be a tolerable excuse to plead, that they are not 〈…〉, but only at Church.  
W●●n Nebuchad●e●zar made a Decree, Dan. 3. that at the sound of the Cor. 〈…〉 etc. a l should fall down and worship, did not he intent, that this 〈…〉 all times, when these Instruments should be sounded 〈…〉 the people of the Land judge Shad●ach, Meshach, and 〈…〉 of the King's Commandment, when having 〈…〉 not bow? So if God should say, At the sound of 〈◊〉 Na● Ies●s, you 〈◊〉 all bow. It is a manifest breach of the Com●●●, when 〈…〉 is head, and no bowing performed. Therefore when God's Commandment is plain, and unlimited, and they say, the Church must 〈◊〉 it, they give the Church authority over God's Word. They cannot deny 〈◊〉 th●y must be always internally reverend at the Name jesus, according to the third Commandment, which enjoins inward reverence at all times, when we m●ntion any of God's Titles, or else God's Name shall be taken in vain. If then expression of outward reverence at the Name jesus, be also God's command, it must be performed at all times when it is mentioned, or else the Name jesus will be profaned, unless they will have the Precepts of the Gospel, less obligatory and binding, than the Precepts of the Law. They may therefore with as good reason affirm, that we are not bound to be internally reverend at all times, when we mention the Name jesus, or any other divine Titles, but only in the Church, as not to express outward reverence at all times when the same Name is mentioned, but only there.   

Answer.  
Your reply to the rule of affirmative precepts is answered, Sect. 5. Yet, because you shall know the time of performing the duty is not limited by the Church alone, who I believe hath the Spirit of God, I will show how the time is set by the Holy Ghost himself. Phil. 2.10. the duty is enjoined, at the Name of Jesus, that is at the mentioning of Jesus: In the next verse is declared the extent of that time. And that every tongue should confess, that jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory, of God the Father. Do you now know the time? You are then beholding to the conjunction, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and When we are openly to confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father, than it is required of us, and no man will deny that the time of divine Service is the special time for confession. Then when it may be done to the glory of God, when God speaks to us, and we unto God, should this duty appear, than we may be sure of it.  
And then, if you will have your own Simile of a Master and his servant hold, you should perform the duty yourself, or else you do then as truly break the decree of God, and Canon of his Church, as the three Children did the Law of Nabuchadnezzar. For though grace be in the Gospel, yet the precepts thereof are binding as the Law, yea they fulfil the Law. In the very performance of this one duty is expressed our observance of the first Table; a faithful acknowledging of the true God, an humble worshipping of him a reverend usage of his holy N●me, and the sanctifying of his Sabbath in due obedience. See my Antiteichesma.    

Secondly, I reply, If we are not bound to perform the duty of the Text, but but by direction and command from the Church. By what authority shall the damned in hell do it, who must yet fulfil the Text as well as we? there is no Church government in hell; or will they have them do it by direction from the Canon? into what unspeakable snares do these men run into by this opinion? 
* Surely devils and reprobates will be beholding to these men, if they can make their opinion good, for unless they should fulfil the Text, they should not be damned, & they have no canon to make them to do it, and they are very fools if they will make a canon to damn themselves.   

Answer.  
The Church reproves the contempt of the duty, directs the more ignorant in the true sense of the Text; but 'tis the Text that commands all. And this all commanding makes it not a precept of the Church, but shows that it is her duty to look to the performance on her part. She goes no further than she by her warrant aught, to rebuke the negligent and contemptuous.  
You would seem witty, but indeed are more than idle, in demanding by what authority the damned bow, and what Church-goverment is in Hell. Take heed of jeering; Scorners God will laugh to scorn; the same power compels the damned that saves us; and if you are curious to know what Church-government is there, you may go and se●. For I know not who can tell you: For whosoever descends thither, 
Greg. Moral. 9  nequam ulterius ad hanc lucem redibit, comes no more hither. Go play your Master piece, preach your poltie unto them, our Church expatiats not her own bounds; the Canons she makes, not against, nor beside the Text, may not be resisted without damnation. Rom. 13.2.  
Your marginal scoff is imputed to your silly impudence. For he, that catcheth vain things, hath ever the face to cast them forth as vainly.    


Again, they make the Church a perpetual Person, the duty never to be ended by this their exposition, For these two clauses, of bowing the knee, and confession with the tongue, that jesus Christ is the Lord, are coupled together by a conjunction copulative, as duties to be done together, both must be done in the Name of jesus; Therefore as they understand (at the Name jesus) and und●rding bowing the knee plainly and properly, they must of necessity understand confession with the tongue, that jesus Christ is Lord, plainly also, and literally. See then what work they will make of it.  
The Naming of jesus, will call for a bowing of the knee at the sound of it, and also at that time a vocal confession with the tongue, that jesus is the Lord. In which confession, jesus being again Named, will call for a new bowing and confession, and so it will come over and over again, never to be ended: this snare they cannot possibly avoid by their so expounding the Text.   

Answer.  
You come again, and against yourself again. Can humility make the Church a Prison? Bowing is the ceremony, and were it more in use, would no more captive us, then putting off the hat, or uncovering the head did, the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.4. Your Confessor M. William Prinne hath granted this to be a duty of the Text; and as this hath its time, the time of praying or prophesying, so hath the other, as before.  
And had you dealt conscionably with your Reader, the reason you give would confute yourself. Take the whole Text, and you shall be judge. The bowing of the knee, and confession of the tongue, aught to be at such time, wherein God may take his glory of knee, and tongue. Either of them in such a time, but not always both together, when they may, the better.  
Here then is no ill work, no snare. The tongue is not bound to speak out, whensoever the Knee doth bow, though when the tongues confession it, That JESUS CHRIST is Lord, the knee may, and aught to insinuate the same to the glory of God the Fa her. You may see my Antiteich. Tract. 7 p 66. and be satisfied there; 
Laert. l. 6.  if you will not, as Diogenes said to the boy casting stones at th● Gibbet, I do to you, Eugo, continges aliquando sco●um.     

SECTION XII.  


WHatsoever Exposition of a Text shall diminish, weaken, and Eclipse the Gl●ry and Majesty of Christ's Kingdom is false, blasphemous, and abominable.  
But the aforesaid Exposition doth so. I will prove that it doth in sundry respects.  
First, When we understand Name above every Name, for the Power and Dominion of Christ over all creature●, and things; by this Exposition the high Dignity of Christ, specified in these words; God highly exalted him, is amplified, and enlarged, and thus it answers o her Scriptures, as Ephes. 1.20.21. where in the twenty ve●se, the high honour of Christ is set down in these words; He raised him from the dead, and set him at his right hand in heavenly places; which words answers to these words in Phil. 2.9. God highly exalted him. Then it follows, vers. 21. Far above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named; which is a farther amplification of Christ's Honour: and fitly answers this phrase in Ephes 1.21. God gave him a Name above every Name,  
Again, This answers pa●ly to daniel's advancement, who was a type of Christ, Dan. 2.48 Where it is said, that the King made Daniela great Man, and gave him great gifts; which is as much as if he had said according to the words of Phil. 2.9. He highly exalted him. Then it follows, that he made him Ruler over the whole Province of Babylon, and chief of the Governors of all the wise men in Babylon, which is an amplification of daniel's honour, and it is as much, as if it had been said, he gave him a Name above all the Names of the wise men in Babylon.  
On the other side: By understanding Name above every Name, for the Title jesus, the honour of Christ is rather diminished; for they give him in effect no Dominion and Power at all; for his proper Name jesus, which others had as well as he, doth not properly denore Power and Authority; but his Power consists in his command and dominion over all, as he is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, Rev. 19.16.   

Answer.  
The Minor is denied, and your proofs fall short.  
For first the high dignity of Christ is not enlarged by expounding Name above every Name for dominion. Nor doth Ephes. 1.20. 21. prove more than that Christ hath power over all things, nor is it parallel to this of Phil. 2.9. unless we will shorten the Text. For he may have power and not be Jesus. But if we will have salvation, power must be poured forth in mercy. The Name then that shows might, and mercy, that must be i●, and this we are sure is Jesus. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p. 21.  
Your again, Dan. 2.48. infers no more, then that Daniel was made a chief Magistrate in Babylon. What you can wrest hence to make the Name above every Name, to be power, and glory only, no expositor declares, nor can I, nor any man else, I believe, find. Your much talk argues you are not to be trusted much.  
Where you are on the other side, your mind is like the Anakims of the world. Nothing takes it save power and dominion. 'tis the Name of mercy that God delights most in, and in Jesus all his mercies are poured forth. They are all in him, and yet his mercies are full of might. Sum up all the glorious Titles of God, Rev. 19.16. Lord of Lords, King of Kings, etc. they are all included when I say Jesus. But I cannot perceive why you should press your sense on the Text, unless you believe that Christ redeemed, Vi potenti, only by a powerful hand, and not by price. You would make the world dream that Christ's sufferings were to confirm his doctrine, and not to sanctify us through the effusion of his precious blood. 1 Pet. 1 19 Are you not a Socinian? If not, as like one as ever I saw.    

Secondly, The Text according to the true meaning thereof, makes Christ Lord of every creature, from whose government & dominion, none can be exempted. The other Exposition robs Christ of the honour and duty of the most of his creatures, which cannot possibly perform their duty to Christ, as they understand it; as I have p oved; so that it makes Christ Lord but of a few of the Creatures, who is Lord of all.  

Answer.  
'tis true, Christ is Lord of every creature: and doth our exposition wherein we give him the highest Name of God ascribe less? Or do we deny him any command of other creatures, when we yield that all reasonable creatures should acknowledge him by knee and tongue? Nay, 'tis argumentum a majori, if he be L●rd of us, for whom all other creatures were made, he is Lord also of those creatures wh●ch he made for our use.    

T●i●dly, The Text truly understood gives to Christ the honour of every knee, Christ will have all the abilities of every pa t and parcel of every creature to bow to him: every knee of every faculty of the Soul, and part of the body m●st bow: he will be honoured with all our strength, Now whereas Christ will have all knees, they give him only by this exposition, the knee of the body properly so called, or a low courtesy, and no mo●e. 
* ● mighty purchase indeed Christ shall have obtained by this exposition, after his extre●me humiliation and suffering, to have nothing but a ceremony done him at the mention of his Name, as these men call it, and distinguish it from a substantial and necessary duty. Page justification of bowing. pag. 6. 7. If it be a ceremony to us, it is also a ceremony to all the creatures: no marvel then if these men affect ceremonies so much, seeing they by their doctrine do make every creature, yea all Angels and glorified Saints, to be altogether in practising a ceremony.   

Answer.  
Thirdly, we deny not Christ any knee: But say that Christ doth here require our knees, and tongues, and literally these, though not these without the heart. These must be enlived by it, or their expressions will be hypocrisy. The obedience of the whole creature is employed in them, and that you will have plyd according to every ability; If according to every one, you contradict yourself, when you deny the Knee. As therefore very ungracious you in denying jesus your knees, so very discourteous to us in saying we give the knee only.  
Your Asterisk dilates it, after your fashion, for a mighty purchase, and you have purchased much at Cambridge, if you think our doctrine of obedience so pharisaical, as to give the out si●e only unto Christ. No bare ceremony, not the sign without the signified.  
Your taxing D. Page, for distinguishing a ceremonial duty, and a substantial, is very like yourself. He shows you plain enough how it is a ceremony and a duty. A ceremony as signifying, and a duty as enjoined. Nor doth it follow, that being a ceremony unto u●, it must be a ceremony unto all creatures, that come not within the compass of religious worship. Nor do we practise, or mind it otherwise then an outward worship commanded by God ought to be observed. Nor do we charge the Angels further than the Scriptures have expressed, and they being known in their postures your taunts shall never disorder us.    

Fourthly, The Text in the true meaning thereof enjoins the bowing therein at all times and places, every creature will they nill they are subject to Christ, and we are bound to bow continually all our strength, all our gifts and endowments, all our natural and spiritual abilities, as faithful servants to the will, dominion, and pleasure of Christ our highest Lord. The other exposition ties this duty not to every place, but to one place, viz. The Temple; and not at all times, but only one day in a week ordinarily, The Lord's Day, and not at all times in the said day, but only then when jesus is named, which amounts in all but to a few minutes in a week; So that they will make Christ Lord but for a few minutes in one day of a week: It is a poor honour that they will allow to Christ f●om this Text, and indeed, it is all that the most of them can afford him, or are willing to give him, allow him two or three courtesies once in a week, and all their time else dishonour him by their scandalous lives.  

Answer.  
Fourthly, the Text enjoins it not at all times, and in all places, was before. And though the outward be not performed without the inward worship, yet the inward is not the whole. Nor may we without Sacrilege take the outward from God at any time, though at all times we cannot, may not, outwardly bow to him.  
'Tis very right, the whole man ought ever to submit unto Christ, and whilst it doth, it makes him ever Lord. Yet, I believe, that on the Lord's Day, we should be fuller in the Lord's service, then on the other. At that time 'tis specially set, at that time then, and at other times when God may take his glory.  
What you allow Christ doth not appear; that we respect him is expressed. Though not so well as heart doth wish, yet with less hypocrisy than the practices of your Sect will permit.  
Whose scandalous lives trouble you I know not, your terms are general: Are all that observe the Text and Canon, and none of your side scandalous? For such and your worse lines take this. When, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is set on them, fire will soon be their end.    

Fifthly, Whereas Christ is Lord and King, especially of his Church, which amongst men are only his true and faithful subjects, for whose sake he will bring down all adversary Power; this their exposition robs Christ of his true Subjects, and thrusteth upon him, for the most part, the members of Antichrist. For the most famous Divines of all times, and of all Churches, are against the said exposition, The best Churches and Christians, because they understand God's Word, practise it not, and who do practise it as a duty of the Text, (a few simply misled only excepted) but a sort of ignorant, superstitious lewd scandalous persons, or mere men-pleasers, and servers of the times, which are enemies to Christ; yet this opinion fo●eeth these on Christ, to be his true subjects, and thrusteth going his own people, purchased with his blood; and what an unspeakable indignity is this to Christ? 
* If a ceremony be the sole honour due to Christ by this Text, & done him only generally by such as these, surely than God hath highly advanced his Son to a very great purpose.   

Answer.  
Fifthly, the faithful only are of the invisible Church, and of them Christ is the g●acious Lord. Gracious to his, and Lord to confound the devises of all the Malignant. But will this exposition rob Christ of his true Subjects? I have learned of him that none shall snatch his out of his hands. joh. 10.28. How then are they removed, and members of Antichrist thrust on him? You cannot tell, nor can you name one famous Divine of any time, or Church, before T.C. that ever wrote against this interpretation.  
And because you are conscious of your own inability, you have now dipped your Pen in virulence. Your full intent is, confusio in proximo, by raising scandals on their Persons, to blast the fruit of their labours. A sort of Ignorant, Superstitious, Lewd, Scandalous Persons, or mere men-pleasers, and servers of the Times, which are enemies to Christ, practise this as a duty of the Text. 
Sen●●. de Vit. be●●. c. 18.  This is yours, and commonly objected per malignissima capita, & optimo cuique inimicissima.  
For my part I can tell you what Tacitus said to Metellus, and that's enough; 
Valer. Maxim.  Tu didicisti maledicere, ego conscientia teste didicimaledicta contemnere, you have learned to speak evil, and my conscience testifieth that I have learned to contemn your evil speakings.  
How Ancient and Modern Divines agree in practice, see my Antiteichisma. Nor doth this opinion force us as you say, on Christ, but because we are his, we have such faith in him, that he can never be too high esteemed of us. If any fly off for it, they were not well informed, or are not engrafted in him. Who feel the want of a Saviour, his very. Name is sweet to them. Your Asterisk points out that only, which was idl lie done before.    

Sixthly and lastly, The opinion of these men deprives Christ of his honour and glory at the great day of judgement. For 1. It puts no difference between his Kingdom now begun, and his Kingdom made perfect, for by their exposition of the Text, they cannot avoid it, but that they must make the bowing at the Name jesus, to be the true bowing at the great day of judgement, as I shown before.  

Answer.  
Sixthly, this was before, Sect. 8. But doth that deprive Christ of his honour, which if he have not, he hath not all his? And though this bowing at the Name of jesus be the true bowing at the day of Judgement, it doth not follow that there is no difference of the Kingdom of grace and glory. Difference there is, but not essential. The same duty now in hand, shall be in perfection then.    

And 2. What an abasement will this be of Christ's honour at that great day: For whereas he shall then appear in his great and glorious Name of Power and Glory, accompanied with his Mighty Angels in flaming fire, 
2 Thes. 1.7.  who shall then yield unto him their fullest service and subjection which is the bowing, that they shall willingly perform unto him at that day; To the end that he may make all his enemies to tremble, that they shall lick the dust, and become his footstool, give them a full and final overthrow, thrust them into the bottomless pit, which is the bowing in the Text, which they shall perform to Christ against their wills; and that he may wholly free his Saints from the corruption of their natures, and renew them perfectly, 
Rom. 8.22.  according to his Image, and reward them with everlasting bliss and happiness, which is the bowing that they shall willingly yield unto him; and that he may renew the creature, which now groans, and traveileth in pain by reason of man's sin. This their exposition makes it to be nothing else but a 
* Seeing these men hold it not necessary to obey the Text, but by direction of a Canon. I wonder what they will do for a Canon to command the Ceremony at the day of judgement.  Ceremony, a corporal bowing at the title jesus, which will be a poor honour to Christ, a poor affrightment to his enemies, a poor advancement to his Friends. It will make this glorious day of the Lord, to have no glory in it; yea, it will make Christ's Kingdom in the height and perfection of it, to be but a ridiculous mock-Kingdome; such a Kingdom in effect as his enemies ascribed to him, Mat. 27.29. Who plated a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and bowed the knee before him, and mocked him. Yea these in some sort deal worse with him than they; for they dealt thus with him in his extreme humiliation, but these do it in the greatest height and perfection of his Kingdom. This opinion therefore darkneth, diminisheth, yea overthroweth the Kingdom of Christ, therefore it is a blasphemous opinion, not to be endured.  

Answer.  
And will this be an abasement to Christ, to have that performed perfectly, which here can be but in part? I grant he shall appear in Power and Glory, not that his Name will be Power and Glory: He shall have the same Name he here had. For the Day is usually called, the Day of our Lord jesus. So in your Quotation, 2 Thes. 1.7. and at verse 12. the Name of our Lord jesus Christ shall then be glorified in us.  
We grant then as full subjection as you; but hold not, that in our perfect renewing this outward expression shall be left. For the four and twenty Elders fall upon their faces, and worship, Rev. 5.14. So do the Angels, chap. 7.11. and we in the humblest way shall like them, show forth the great glory of the Lord.  
It was before, that bowing is not a Ceremony only. At the Note in your Margin you suppose, which I never yielded, that bowing is only necessary by the Canon. But if it were, may not bowing be a duty of the Church Triumphant? Not by humane injunction, by the eternal Canon of the Lord it shall. And if outward expression seem poor to you, why are the Seraphins set forth covering of their faces, Isa. 6.2. and the Saints and Angels in their humble Cadencies, Rev. 3.10. & 5.8.14. & 7.11.12? And is this poor advancement? Against the glory of God, a ridiculous mock-Kingdome? A derision worse than that of the jews, when they had condemned our Saviour; and a blasphemous opinion? What strange Pride attempted this horrid Blasphemy? Are you minded to go to Heaven, who writ this in earnest? Had my Pen said so, I would, by the grace of God, make that Hand openly recant, which made it so speak, and in such Characters too, as might testify true remorse. The more humble we are, the more God is glorified; and it will be our highest glory, that we shall ever be humble in his presence. Who mind not so to be, will never be exalted thither. Indeed, Pride was first brought forth in Heaven, sed velut immemor qua via ceoidit, illuc postea redire non potuit; 
Hang. de anima. l. 1.  but as if it had forgotten the way it fell from thence, it could never find the way to return thither.     

SECTION XIII.  


THe bowing at the Name jesus, is neither typified nor prophesied of in the old Testament, therefore it is no way probable, that it is a due honour to Christ in the new Testament.  
The consequent is proved by these places, Act, 10.43. Act. 3.24. What is there any thing material concerning Christ, but it was foreshowed?  
Yea, the Law hath jots and tittles concerning Christ; 
Mat. 5.18. Hos. 11.1. Mat. 2.23. Mich. 5.2. Psa. 22.18. Num. 9.12.  small matters of him were foretold; as his flying into Egypt; his bringing up at Nazareth; his birth at the Town of Bethelem; the Soldiers casting Lots for his Garments; the not breaking of his bones. But this honour in the Text, is the honour of Christ's Kingdom, which indeed is foretold according to the true meaning of the Text, as Psal. 2.8.9.10.11.12. Isa. 45.23. But whereas all other honours concerning Christ, both external and internal, are foretold, corporal bowing at his Name is not foretold: and seeing jots and tittles concerning Christ are foreshowed, and bowing at the Name jesus (if it were the Evangelicall honour of Christ) not foretold, it would lay an high imputation on the Majesty of God, and impute that crime to God's change, that our Saviour justly laid to the charge of the Pharisees, Mat. 23.23. Who tithed Mint and Cummin, and neglected the weightier matters of the Law.   

Answer.  
The antecedent is very false, if you could cast aside your supposition of the bare Name, yet were that true, your argument is not right. For a truth may be in analogy, and not typified, nor prophesied. Neither of the places Act. 3.24. and 10.43. speak of the typifying and prophesying of every particular, but of Christ in general terms. Nor doth Mat. 5.18. teach more than that not one jo● or tittle of the Law shall not fail till all things be fulfilled.  
But how if it be found in type and prophecy? will you still preach it damnable superstition? Is it not shadowed Gen. 37.9. I dare believe S. Augustine before you, and he saith, 
Aug. quaes. sup. Gen. 123. l. 1.  that dream was fulfilled, in the Person of Christ, according to that of the Apostle Phil. 2.9.10.11. So was it in Moses on the Mount, Exod. 17.11.12. Where he beholding the typical deliverer doth homage to the substantial, and there, quia illic nomen Domini jesit dimicabat, because the Name of the Lord jesus did skirmish there, saith Tertullian. 
Tertul. adv. Mars. l. 3. c. 18.   
I have showed it foretold by God himself in Exod. 3.15. by the Prophet David, Psal. 75.1. and 111.9. by Isaiah, Isa. 45.23. See my Antit. Tract. 4. pag. 33. If satisfaction be not given there, I shall say of you as S. Augustine did, De Chatechizandis rudibus, Omnia contemnit, qui non solum quantum potuit, sed etiam quantum voluit habere contemnit, he contemns all things, that not only contemes as much as he could, but as much also as he would have.     

SECTION XIV.  

THere is no example for bowing at the Name Jesus in the whole New Testament, therefore it is not probable, that it is a commanded duty. The consequent is plain; for what necessary duty is there, but there is sufficient light in Scripture, that it was practised. We read of the often meeting of the Church together in the New Testament, of their Prophesying and Prayers, with the several gestures of them; but there is not the least intimation in the Scripture, that ever bowing at the Name jesus was practised. As there must be offences for the hardening of the wicked, so God will have Examples for the benefiting of his people, 
Mat. 18.7.  and for the leaving the wicked without excuse. The Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 6.2. That the Saints shall judge the world, that is one way of their judging of them by their virtuous examples. God was ever mindful, that there should be examples, john. 1●. 15. Phil. 2.5.1 Thes. 1.7.2. Thes. 3.9. 1 Tim. 4.12. The Apostle having spoken Heb. 11. of the faith of God's Worthies, and of the singular fruits thereof, concludes Heb. 12.1. Seeing there is such a cloud of witnesses; let us run with patience the race that is set before us. There are a cloud of witnesses for other duties, nor one witness for this bowing; What, will God have us run in other duties, and stand still in this, it is impossible, if it were of his appointment? Seeing then there is neither example, nor show of example in the whole Book of God, for bowing at the Name jesus; it is a strong convincing Argument, that it is none of God's appointment.  

Answer.  
Take the Name in the sense, and the antecedent is false. Yet if there were no example, your consequence is naught. For there may be sufficient Light for that in the Scripture, whereof there is no precedent for the practice. As in Sect. 4. & 8. & 13.  
And though it be no necessary duty at all times, as an outward ceremony, yet in its circumstances, when it ought to be expressed, the contempt is desperate. It is not the saying, it was not practised, will serve: Show me an example of any man's putting off his Hat in the time of Praying and Prophesying, if you can; yet that I hope is a duty of the Text.  
But we do read of several Gestures there, among which Bowing is more than intimated, and at the Name of Jesus too, if you will give the Name a sense. At, and in the sense of the Name, Moses spreads his hands before the Lord on the Mount, Exod. 17.11, 12. King David will have us worship Bowing, Kneeling, before the Faces or Memorials of Jehovah, Psal. 95.6. And is not the Name of our God his Memorial for ever, and the Principal, Exod. 3.15. Psal. 135.13? The Disciples fall on their faces, and worship at the hearing of a Voice, Mat. 17.6. And you shall find Saint Stephen, Act. 7.60. Saint Peter, Act. 9.4. Saint Paul, Ephes. 3.14. And the whole Church, Act. 20.36. in this practice.  
But you will reply, there is not bowing at the Name expressly.  
I answer it is ever employed when we go unto God, or else our labour is in vain. For he that comes unto the Lord, and not in, or at the Name of jesus, goes into a consuming fire: and that's the reason why the Precept, Ask in my Name, is so frequent in the Evangelists.  
And what, I pray, do any of your Quotations prove, save that there are sufficient examples of faith, and manners? Your inference is so fare from those Texts, that it had been as good if you had cited no Texts for your inference. We may not lose a Truth, because we have it not illustrated according to your Whirls. If you could hold yourself, as in the Scriptures you ought, ad sensum, medullam, & radicem rationis, 
Hier. sup. Epist. ad Eph c. 1.  as Saint Hierome says, if the Book be his, to the substance of the letter in the sense, and ground of reason, you would conclude, that there is a Cloud of Witnesses, not for patience only, but for this very practice also in the Scriptures. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 4.5.6.     

SECTION XV.  


THis opinion and practice was not known in the purest of ancient times, yea it was not known within seven hundred years after Christ. I might go yet a great way further, as some do. It is the usual wont of these men, to boast, that generally all the Fathers are on their side, whereby they deceive poor simple souls. But they must not think to carry it away with big words of ostentation, but they must prove what they say, and not bring halting proofs, but full to the purpose. Generally, 
On Phil. 2.9.10.  saith Zanthy, the Fathers do understand the Name above every Name either of the Name of God or the Name of the only begotten Son of God, and some of Christ's glory; how then could they expound the Text, as these men do? If three or four Fathers may be brought to make the Name Jesus the Principal Name; which are either not the most ancient, or most orthodox; they are nothing to the general stream of the other, more ancient, or more orthodox, that do not make the Name jesus the Principal Name: Yet these three or four as Master Page confesseth, do not say that adoration must be done at the sound of the Name jesus; yea he affirms, that there is no full authority for bowing at the Name Jesus from the Fathers.   

Answer.  
You are a rare Antiquary, and in time may merit a Pillar of Marble among the Worthies. Do you think the Apostle spoke per antiphrasin, and positively commanding, meant the contrary? Was it not known a great way further from the purest times, then seven hundred years? Prove you that, and show who broached it then. 'Tis you deceive poor simple souls by your broad Phylacteries: the Fathers are generally on our side; and not you, nor any man else that ever I heard of, can produce one against it. This is no ostentation, the Thrasonical part is yours, and your sesquipedalia will not make one inch.  
What Zanchius 
Zanch. in loc.  saith, is against yourself: Praeter Graecos Latini quoque Patres de Nomine Dei & Filii Dei unigeniti hunc locum interpretantur; beside the Greek Fathers, the Latin also interpret this place, viz. Name above every Name, of the Name of God, and of the only begotten Son of God. Are we off here? Is not jesus the highest express of God, or the only begotten Son of him?  
Your opinion, that Name is Glory, which was brought forth, but not known by whom, he saith Theodoret rejecteth; and who took it for a bare Name were Heretics, and so say we.  
I doubt you cannot name who understand it of the Name Jesus and show where; nor prove they are not very ancient, or not very Orthodox But if they be no more than three, or four, they are more than you, or any are able to bring against it. For taking it, as we do, de Nomine cum re conjuncto, of the Name with the thing, none controvert it; it, saith learned Zanchius, is Catholical.  
You charge Doctor Page, but note no place: for confessing, that the three or four do not say the adoration must be done at the sound of the Name, and that it hath no full authority from the Fathers; I believe you intent it, where your credit can gain no repute, viz. page 133. in his Answer to M. Prinnes first Quaere. His words are these: I have brought many Fathers to prove, that by Bowing in that Text is meant not an inward subjection only, but also some outward expression of bodily reverence: and likewise I have brought many other Fathers and Writers to prove, that the Name in the Text is meant the Name Jesus. So then put both these together, and they will make up that Conclusion and Exposition which you refuse. But I can find but few that join both these together; for those that speak of Bowing, commonly say nothing of the Name; and those that tell what is meant by the Name, usually say nothing of bowing the Knee. He saith further, that none of the Father's cross it; and He that is not against, is with or for us, Luk. 9.50. especially in Rites belonging to God's service. Nor is this any disparagement to those glorious Lights, that the Church now should see a little farther into a Text than they did.  
What's in all this against us? You should have answered the Learned Doctors Quaere, and produced some ancient Fathers or Authors against our custom of bowing at the Name of jesus, and then you would be the farre-seeing Dwarf sitting upon the Giants back. Till you do, all men will say, you are but on the ground, and 'tis strange presumption for you to overlook.    

Some Divines do conjecture, that this custom was brought up first to testify Christ's divinity against Arrius, but they neither prove it, neither can they; and if it were so, it overthrows these men's grounding it upon the Text: The best instance, which these Bowers bring from the Fathers, is that of S. Hierome, whom yet they do pitifully wrest. This Father commenting on Isa. 45.23, showeth that this Text is now fulfilled in Christ. For, saith he, Moris est Ecclesiastici Christo genuflectere, It is an Ecclesiastical custom to kneel, or bow the knee to Christ. But Hierome speaks of Christ, not jesus. He doth not say, that this kneeling or bowing should be done at the Name jesus. It is also the manner of Christians to bow to God, do they therefore bow at the Name God? And indeed what Hierome saith, is now verified by every true Christian, who humbly pray to God in the Name of Christ, and is not this to bow to Christ? Now that Hierome consents not unto them it is plain; for when he entreats on Phil. 2.9.10. the place in controversy, he saith there no more but this, according to the judgement of other Authors, that all Creatures should adore Christ: An evident Argument that Hierome was not of these men's opinion.  

Answer.  
We hold it not a custom taken up by men, but an institution Divine, to insinuate, and against all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that Jesus Christ is Lord. We go not to prove, that it was first in use against the Arrians; but being then, that practice shows it was in the Primitive times. And that it was then used, Zanchy, Whitegift, and Hooker, more Learned than any you can bring against us, affirm.  
The place of Saint Hierome is very good, and fare better than any you can retort. But he is not the first, nor do we force him to us. His words are plain at Isay 45.23. where he expoundeth, Every knee shall bow to me, 
Hieron. in Isa. c. 25.  by this Text, Phil. 2.10. In quo perspicue significatur populus Christianus: moris enim Ecclesiastici est Christo genu flectere, quod Jud●i mentis superbiam demonstrantes omnino non faciunt: In which place, saith he, the Christian people are signified; for it is the custom of the Church to bow the knee unto Christ, which the Jews, showing the pride of their mind, do not at all.  
Where bowing of the knee must be taken literally: or else how doth it appear that the jews did not bow. And 'twas a custom too of the Church, not any private devotion like yours. And what though he say Christ, doth he exclude jesus? Or was it not granted, that the Name must be Jesus? Or was not Jesus Christ?  
But he doth not say, that this Bowing is at the Name Jesus. What though he doth not? If you mind the sense of the Name, he intends it as the Text doth, and the Fathers before, and after him hold themselves to the very Letter, in, or at the Name of Jesus. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. And do not you think it the manner of Christians to bow to God, and at the Name of God to do it? Your apprehension, I confess is fare beyond my reach. For I could never yet find how to go unto God, but at, or in, or by his Name: Nor at any time dare I adventure toward him, before faith hath mentioned jesus in my heart; at that mention of him I do, and will at any time.  
You confess that what S. Hierome saith, is now verified by every true Christian: But how? By humble praying to God in the Name of Christ. And can it be known that you pray humbly, when you have no humble expression? That's the reason I ever took you for a proud, and scornful man. Now I cry you mercy Sir; And tell you, that when your virtue shines before men, God shall have glory also of them.  
But indeed is that S. Hieromes meaning? Then first you make him contradict himself: For on Phil. 2.9.10. he saith, 
Vid. Rob. C●e. Censu. Scrip. veter.  If I may ascribe it to S. Hierome, that all creatures should adore Christ, and I have been taught that there can be no adoration without an outward act.  
Secondly, you overthrew your former doctrine, viz. the subjection here is the subjection of all creatures, and shall all creatures pray to the Father in the Name of Christ? I had thought the damned would not, and the irrational, and senseless could not. You may sum up all your absurds before, and take them to yourself here.    

The truth is, the Fathers are wrested, not one is for them. If any one in answer to this Argument will produce Fathers, I pray them to produce them to say, not only that the Name jesus, is the Name above every Name, but also to say, that by bowing in the Name of jesus, is meant bowing at the mention of the Name jesus, If they bring none to speak thus full, let them spare their labour, for otherwise their Testimonies will halt, and not be worth a rush.  

Answer.  
Now you are tell troth: you say what is amiss, and what must be done for amends. First, the Fathers are wrested. By whom? not by you it seems, you read not, you care not for them. But how can they be wrested where no word nor sense is changed? See my Antiteichisma, and supervise me.  
Secondly, that I must produce the Fathers to say etc. that is to speak English, mean you so? In their languages the Name of Jesus is above every Name, and the bowing in the Text is the bowing in or at the Name of Jesus. If you dislike the translation of Nomen jesu, by Name, you may use mention. For nothing else can be so rightly understood. Not power or glory, was showed before. Not Person, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to him in the ninth verse is his Person, and the sense would be, God hath given his Person, a Person which is above every Person. There must then either be a periphrasis in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Name of jesus, is when jesus is named, mentioned, etc. or Nomen must be translated mention, and so it will reach kneeling at prayers, and bowing at other times. In, or at the Name all the Fathers that I have seen do say, and not one any thing that may be forced against it. See my Antiteichisma, and for your labour here I return an Epigram of Martial.  
Nil recitas, & vis Mamerce Poeta videri;  

Mart. l. 2. Epig. 38.  Quicquid vis, esto, dummodo vil recitas.     

SECTION XVI.  

THe Visitors at their Visitations in the late crazy days, though then they grounded the bowing at the Name jesus, not only upon the Canon, but also upon the Text of Scripture, yet did at that time give leave to some Ministers, that scrupled the sole bowing at the Name jesus, (though it was very unwillingly granted) to bow at other Divine Names, so they would bow at that, and not only so, but at that time, they used veneration, and suffered it to be done at humane Names. For at the Metropolitical Visitation at the Cliff by Lewes in Sussex, in the beginning of july 1635, The Visitor entering into speech of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, as soon as ever he named William, he put off his hat, and the greater part of the Ministers than present made low obeisance: This is true, and thereof there be many witnesses.  

Answer.  
Hic labour, hoc opus; In your Epistle you tie me to answer every thing, or you will take no answer to any thing: and here is that I never heard of, and verily believe, never was, as is expressed in your terms.  
In the late crazy, you say, and say it in the lose days now. If there might be a revolution of them, these are more abhorred then in haste to be recalled. In the late it was, and before the late the days were too remiss, or these had not been now.  
Now they are, and now we hear the Visitors at their Visitations gave leave to some Ministers, that scrupled the sole bowing at the Name jesus, to bow at other Divine Names. This I remember, that M. Maynard of Mayfield being questioned upon the Canon, had nothing to say against it, but that he would bow at other Divine Names too. The Visitor answered, that all the Names and Attributes of God were to be used reverently; but this was commanded, or to that effect.  
Whether entering into speech of his grace of Canterbury, at the Name of William he put off his Hat, and the greater part of Ministers than present made low obeisance, I know not. I was not then in presence, if I had, I should have been so civil as you could wish I would say. And if all you writ were thus, there was not, there could not be, I should think, more in all, than a token of obedience.    

I contend now, that this toleration, and this practice, doth contradict this opinion of bowing at the Name jesus. As for the second instance, if any now shall distinguish between divine and civil worship; and affirm that this was but civil worship. 1. I reply, I could question the distinction 
* See M. Gurnay Vindication of the second Commandment, from Pag. 54. to 107. , but though I should grant that this distinction may be admitted elsewhere, yet cannot it be admitted here, for if the Name jesus, be the Name above every Name in the Text, it must have proper relation to Names and Titles; then if the honour of the knee be the advancement of the Name jesus above other Names, no honour of the knee whatsoever, may be performed to any other Name, for thou how shall the advancement of the Name jesus above other Names appear? Again, though it should be granted, that the civil worship of the knee may be given to the Names of men, which yet is not to be granted upon these men's grounds, yet no divine worship of the knee, upon the said grounds can be given to any Name whatsoever. Therefore no Names of God, besides the Name jesus, can be adored with the worship of the knee. For whatsoever is divine, is only capable of divine worship. Then, if any other Divine Names may be indifferently bowed unto, they giving the pre-eminence above them all to the Name jesus, it is a plain contradiction, for than they make them as high, and as honourable, as the Name jesus. But if other Names of God, besides the Name jesus, shall not be bowed to, as these Superstitious jesu-worshippers never do, by their bowing at or to the Names of men, it cannot be avoided but they give the pre-eminence to the Names of men, above the Names of God, which shall have some honour done them, all the honour that they are capable of, but the Names of God shall have none at all; for bowing the knee in the Text, doth denote pre-eminence. To conclude, if all Divine Names may have divine honour done to them, when they are named, and humane Names have civil honour done to them, call it what you will, jam sumus ergo Pares, what prerogative or super-eminency of honour shall the Name jesus have above other Names? Then the Text of Phil, 2.9.10. as these men understand it, shall stand but for a cipher; For if all Titles both divine and humane, be of themselves capable of the honour of the knee, than was the Name jesus capable of this honour▪ if it had never been advanced. To what purpose then did God so highly advance it to receive this honour?  

Answer.  
You contend, that this toleration and this practice do contradict our opinion of bowing at the Name: and because you do contend you could question the distinction of Divine and Civil worship. You could: could you also question the first and Second Table? You may do the one as well as the other. When I meet with M. Gurnay, I'll follow your direction, in the while I shall try whether, rem poteris servare tuam, you can maintain your own?  
You say, that distinction cannot be admitted here: for then how shall the advancement of the Name jesus above other Names appear?  
Very good: you will give no honour to the King, that the honour of God may the more appear. Here is Manicheisme, and Anabaptism, with a witness. If such Doctrine be preached, be printed, no marvel that the contention is so hot for parity. Have you forgot the similitude our Saviour taught between the first and second Table, Mat. 22.37, 38, 39? I will remember you, it consists in quality, both sincere; in analogy, both from love; and in punishment, the violation of both hath the guilt of eternal damnation. Herein is the great difference; the first, is immediate worship of God; the second, mediate. The second than is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, fraudative, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, completive, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so appendent, that he which loves not his neighbour, doth much less love God, 1 joh. 4.20.  
The Divine worship goes not to man; our bowing to Superiors, or at the Name of the King, etc. hath reference to the Ordinance of God. There is no inconsistence then between the bowing at the Name of jesus, and bowing at the Name of Charles: for that shows the immediate honour of God, and this other his mediate.  
At your again, you get as little: For all the Names of God being Divine, aught to be religiously handled; and if any man bow at the Name of Jehovah unto God, if not in contempt of the Name of jesus, I'll not forbid him. But let him do it at the Name of jesus above all, because above all it is commanded; and why he should, in my Antiteichisma, Tract. 3. are reasons many. Nor doth this imply any contradiction, because jehovah is the Name of God; yet he that bows at jehovah, and minds not jesus, is a jew.  
And though every Divine Name be alike Divine, yet all Divine Names are not set forth alike to us, wherein we should worship God. jehovah, of all, was most to the jews, jesus is to us. And though we may, and sometimes do, put off a Hat at the Name of, or bow the knee to a Superior, yet we part not with any Divine worship, as this Jesu-prophaner falsely chargeth us. We only signify our love and high esteem of him, as God's Vicegerent. Bare Names are not capable of any honour, nor do we give them any. Charles is our Supreme Head, next under Christ; and therefore King Charles hath, or should have the highest respect of us on Earth. But jesus is the Supreme of all Supremes, and therefore to him, as the Head of the Church, give we the greatest supereminencie. Non sumus ergo pares.    

If any shall yet object, that though God have advanced the Name jesus above every Name, that every knee should bow to it, yet other Names m●y be ●owed unto, because the bowing of the knee, which is due to God, who is Lord or all, and so to every Person of the Trinity, is also allowed to be done to man. I answer, 1. No Text puts difference between the Persons of the Trinity, but they say that the Text of Phil. 2.9. puts difference between Names, in preferring the Name jesus above other Divine Names. Therefore, upon their grounds, Divine Names must not be honoured alike, (though the Persons of the Trinity must) because, 
Gen. 41.45. Gen. 33.3. 2 Sam. 18.28. 1 King. 1.16.  say they, the Name jesus is above them all. 2. God hath commanded the bowing of the knee to be done to men, and there be examples for it in Scripture. But he hath no where commanded bowing of the knee to be done to Names, either divine or humane; neither be there any examples in Scripture, that either the one or the other was ever practised: Therefore if it be true, as these men say, that bowing at the Name jesus is God's command to be done to it upon so special a reason, that it is the Name above every Name, there being no command, or example of bowing at any other Name besides, nothing can be more certain, but that the Name jesus is selected and culled out among all other Names, to have the honour of the knee peculiarly to be done to it. Therefore to give this bowing to Divine Names is evil, but intolerable presumption to give it to the Names of men; for this cannot be done without horrible profanation of the Name of jesus, This will necessarily follow, if bowing at the Name jesus be grounded upon the said Text.  

Answer.  
First, In your reply you go on with your old mistake, that we separate Names from Things: and once more I inform you, that jesus is by dispensation the only Name, wherein God, and all he is, in Persons and Attributes, receives due and equal honour.  
Secondly, God hath commanded bowing unto Names, if you can understand the Things under the Names, and without Names I know you understand nothing. Of this you have examples in the old and new Testament very frequent. But you will say, that is to the Name and Thing as the object, not at the Name to the object. Even so too, you see Sect. 4. and 13. and Mat. 17.6. the Disciples are found in the very practice.  
But is it not sufficient, that God commands you to bow at this Name, 
justification of bow. p. 31.  and hath not laid the like command on you to bow at any other of his Names? Doctor Page affirms, and so do I, that his command is reason enough to obedient Christians, who find the reasons of his commands are sometimes secret, though always just. Yet we know some reasons for this, and you may read them in my Antiteichisma, Tract. 1. 2. 3. 4.  
I have no more to say unto you here, but that as your Section began untowardly, so it goes out vilely. For though there be no express command for bowing at all Divine Names, yet it is blasphemy to make it evil to bow to them in their sense. Nor do you a little blaspheme our Church, in saying that she gives this bowing unto the Names of men. God forbidden, that we should make men equal with him, or all men equal. Such profaneness dares much. It will not permit, iracunda jovem ponere fulmina, the Almighty God to divert his heavy judgements.     

SECTION XVII.  

THis exposition of the said Text, will bring a scandal upon the Church of England; for though an injunction passed in the days of Queen Elizabeth, to authorise this Ceremony, and a Canon was made for it in the beginning of King james his Reign, (though the words of the Canon are not plain for it) yet was the execution of it generally neglected. No man was urged, or compelled to it. The learned Worthies of our Church were suffered to confute this exposition of the Text as a Popish error, as Bishop Alley, Bishop Babington, Doctor Airy, Doctor Whitakers, Doctor Fulke, Doctor Willet, with sundry others. Yea, those Ministers that were suspended for Ceremonies, were never called into question for this. Yea Master 
* Eccl. Polit. li. 5. sect. 30.  H●●ker, pleading for our Ceremonies, calleth bowing at the Name Jesus, an innocent harmless Ceremony, which none, saith he, is constrained to use: It appears that by his judgement none ought to be compelled to it. But the Governors of the Church have constrained Ministers all along for the most part to use the rest of the Ceremonies; but the other was generally neglected, and not u●ged, till the days of this late Archbishop. Therefore if this be a duty of the Text, it will accuse the Church of England of gross hypocrisy, in urging mere Ceremonies, and neglecting to urge a necessary duty: It would be a preferring of her own traditions above God's Commandments: It would make then, that the Church failed in sincerity, till this late Archbishop came.  

Answer.  
You are very bold still with the Text and Church. Indeed there must be offences, but woe unto the man by whom they come. Mat. 18.7. If there be evil, will the Scripture make the scandal? The duty is neglected, and therefore this literal exposition of the Text offends the Church.  
Again, some men do not observe the injunction, o● Canon, according to the Text, therefore the Church is in fault for making such a Canon. Here you do Machiavalize among the people to some purpose. This is it hath spurned the religious, and learned into the very Channel of filthiness. God hath permitted, and they that are approved shall be known. 1. Cor. 11.19.  
But suppose, Bishop Alley, Bishop Babington; and will you take authority from a Bishop, that have cried down Bishops as Antichristian, greedy Wolves, hungry Lions? take it whence you can, I care not much: From Doctor Airy, Doctor Whitakers, Doctor Fulke, Doctor Willet, if you have no other, your strength is not great.  
Bishop Alley I have not seen, but not one of the other determine against any more than the Superstitious abuse of the Name jesus.  
Yet suppose some, or all of these, or more refused this exposition, did not the two Universities, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, and of King James of blessed Memory, and the Synod begun at London, 1603. hold as learned and more Worthies, who concluded this a duty necessary to be performed. See my Antiteich. Tract. 4. pag. 38.  
Suppose again, that no man as Master Hooker saith, was constrained unto it: I will suppose no man was so mad as to contemn it. And suppose Ministers suspended for other Ceremonies, were never questioned for this: I will again suppose they were not complained of. All then you say doth no more make it not a duty of the Text, or accuse the Church of hypocrisy, than your not administering the Lords Supper, but as, and when you please, doth. One particular destroys not the general: Nor doth the not punishing every neglect of a duty make it less a duty.  
It may often happen, as now it doth, that the Church hath little or no power to punish. But had she power, and were not the Canons within the Churchwardens inquiry? Did they, or any other ever Present the default, and it passed without blame? Bishops though they be eminent inspectors, are not Omniscient. If the offenders be not made known, whom shall they correct?  
The Scriptures hath prescribed this, Non sit dubitandum, 
Aug. Epist. 110. ad Ianu.  quin ita facere debeamus, No doubt we ought so to do. The Church therefore questions not every neglect before she finds the contempt. And the less, because she holds it a part, insolentissimae insaniae, of most insolent madness to dispute God's command.     

SECTION XVIII.  

LAst of all, I may bring this as a reason against them; the most of them, and some also of the chiefest of them, that ground it on the Text, yet hold their opinion very uncertainly: they pass to and fro betwixt the Text and the Canon: When they think that the Authority of the Canon is not altogether sufficient to make the people to practise it, they flee to the Text, & when they are afraid that the Text will not bear it they flee to the Canon. And if this be not halting between two opinions, for my part, I know not what is, I will instance but in one; Master Page in his Treatise of justification of bowing at the Name jesus, doth confess, that when he first went about that Treatise, he did not think that it could be so directly proved from the Text; a plain evidence that he went about it doubtfully; for he was to encounter with an Antagonist, that held it no duty of the Text; and would he go about to contradict him, when himself was fearful that the Text would not bear it? but he affirms that when he had read Bishop Andrew's on Phil. 2, he could not but condescend to his 
* Page justification bowing, P. 4.  opinion; yea though he brings many Arguments, such as they are, to prove it a duty, yet thus he closeth with his Antagonist; Though I am not so peremptory, saith he, that it is a duty of the Text, as you are it is not; Nevertheless, if the Text fail me, I will ground it upon the Authority of the Church.  

Answer.  
Whom you here mean I know not, some and some of the chiefest they are, and in their opinions uncertain they. Because what you think you say, and care not what. Sir, if you will understand, what, I fear, you study to contemn, this Orthodox truth, you must go from the Text to the Canon, and from the Canon to the Text.  
Thus, if you will from the Text to the Canon, as to the Hypereticall or Ministerial Diction of the Sentence; and then from the Canon to the Text, to examine it by the Decisive of the Scripture. This course I first took, and the Scripture hath so determined it in my Conscience, as I writ.  
Consider once more the Text, and the Canon, and this Ceremony is a Divine duty, and a Humane. As commanded in Scripture, it is a Ceremonial duty Divine, or of the Text, 
justifi, of bowing, P. 8.  saith Doctor Page; and as commanded by the Church, it is also a Ceremonial duty Humane, or of the Canon.  
Who then ask, how I am sure that this is the Truth? Answer is, the Church hath so expounded it: If demand be, how is this Opinion of the Church discerned? Answer is, by the Letter of the Text, and in the analogy of the Truth.  
Nor is this all: I am bound by the Text, and by the Church; if I will not observe the Text, God will punish me for disobeying the Church also: And this we find in the Scriptures he doth more grievously, than sins immediately committed against himself.  
So to look we ought unto the Text, and to the Canon. And if this be halting between two opinions, you must halt in many things, or be very ignorant; and because you will not be stayed by the Church in any thing, you stumble often as you go.  
And now are fallen heavy on Doctor Page, whom a good man, having blessed God for him, will honour for his worth, and thank for his pains.  

Ambros. sup. beati immacul.  Ordinis ignorantia conturbat negotiorum naturam, formamque meritorum; and you have done what thereby you could to crack his credit, which still increaseth by your contempt.  
You note him for halting, where his judgement is most sound. I'll express his words, because you have chopped them to spoil his sense.  
I must confess, saith he, that when I first entered upon this business, I thought it could not be so directly proved out of the Text.  
But when I had perused that Learned and judicious Prelate Bishop Andrew's upon these words, who conquers where he goes, etc. I could not but condescend to his opinion.  
Not that I am so peremptory it is a duty of the Text, as you are that it is not; but I am persuaded now, that it may be very probably defended even out of the Text.  
Wherein notwithstanding, if I fail, the Cause in hand is no whit prejudiced, being principally defended upon the Church's Authority.  
But for aught I perceive yet, you must bring better Reasons than any you yet alleged, before you persuade me that it is no duty of the Text.  
What see you here, save a modest and free confession of his first thoughts? His care and course not to err, his submission to the Authority of the Church, and his confidence, even at the sundry insults of his Adversary, that it is a duty of the Text. He doubteth, he searcheth, he finds, he stands to it. Here is no despising of Prophesying, but an examining of all things, a holding fast that which is good; and this is Apostolical, 1. Thess. 5.20.21.  
Will you be remembered now? The time was, when you held it lawful to be done, and since writ to me, that it was an indifferent Ceremony. But now, in this great Lose, you have preached it Damnable Superstition: Damnable you will have it.  
Is not this, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, worse th●n doubting, even fraudulent, and base playing on both sides. Carpere vel noli nostra, vel ede tua.    

Yea throughout the whole Treatise, he is content with any testimony or proof from any Author, that may give the least signification that it is but a thing indifferent, yea which is to be noted, that those Authors, that are evidently against him, and understand bowing the knee in the Text, of subjection; because they say that this subjection is signified by bowing the knee, he takes to be for him; he may as well affirm, that because Kings and Rulers are commanded to be subject to Christ, Psal. 2.12. which subjection is signified by the word Kiss; therefore they are bidden in an express and literal way, directly and plainly to Kiss Christ.  

Answer.  
Certainly you have a Worm, and cannot be quiet. Let any Scholar, with an impartial eye, peruse the Learned Doctor's Book, and he will deem that you either know not Authority, good from bad, or mind not what you read.  
I have looked into most of the Authors themselves, and must testify unto the World, that you have taxed him falsely.  
What though he say, that Bishop Babington confesseth, by bowing the knee is meant subjection, 
justifi. of bowing, Pa. 22.  whereof bowing the knee is a sign, and we desire no more?  
Is this any thing? Yes, very great against you; for he is the main Pillar you fly too: 
B. Babing. in his exposis, of the Catho. Faith. p. 197.  and affirming the bowing of the knee there to be a sign, he overthrows you.  
Your paralleling the Bowing with the Kiss, Psal. 2.12. holds not: for his Name we have with us, to bow at, his Person we have not directly and literally to kiss.    

A strange thing, that a man should write so largely as he doth, and yet not be sure of his own grounds; what is this, but to ensnare the Consciences of his Readers, to make them practise a duty, yet they shall not know upon what ground they practise it? they shall not know whether they obey God's Commandment, or Man's only. To state & preach this opinion so uncertainly, as many Ministers ha●e done, what is this, but to bring upon the consciences of their people a necessity of sinning, and so great peril of damnation? for whatsoever is not of faith is sin, Rom. 14.23. I say to all these men, as Elias said to the Worshippers of Baal, 1 Kings 18.21. Why do ye halt between two opinions? If God be God, follow him, but if Baal be he, follow him: So I say, If you will ground this bowing upon the Text, follow that, or if upon the Canon, follow 
* Though they have no fast footing upon either.  that; you cannot ground it upon both, and yet make it a thing indifferent; for if you ground it on the Text, you must make it necessary, and always, and at all times, and places, continually to bind.  

Answer.  
A strange rudeness to be so lavish of Pen: but you are put to it, and having ensnared, know no other way to uphold your Gin. 'tis ever your ultimum refugium, when arguments are convincing, to play the Huckster. A lose tongue countenanceth your own by depraving others.  
'tis infallible, whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But observes he not this Canon, who following the letter of the Text, keeps the analogy of faith, and obeys the authority of the Church?  
Had you descended unto Zanchies seventh and eighth rule of interpreting the Scriptures, 
Zanch. de interp. S. Scrip. C. 2. p. 423.  you might have seen the Doctor's judgement.  
First, in containing himself intra terminos tam reales, quam etiam verbales, both within the real, and verbal terms of the Text.  
Secondly, in searching the interpreters, 
justifi. of bowing, p. 5.  and not yielding unto authority without reason. And this is the cause, saith Learned Zanchy, that we attain not the true sense; some contemn the learned, others will read none, save there affected; with the former, I doubt, you are an Anabaptist, with the other, a Papist.  
And in his wisdom Doctor Page hath so certainly stated the question, that you cannot maintain your assertion without being in contempt.  
Avoid this Dilemma, and I will set you free.  
If it be full subjection, as you and your side contend, then 'tis not full without the bowing of the knee. For that is one faculty of man, an humble one too, and a real, and verbal term of the Text.  
If mental only, as some times you say, show your mental subjection without an outward act, for all outward may come within the bowing of the knee, and I will show you that my ears see, and my eyes hear. One is as true as the other. If you cannot demonstrate it, how doth your light shine before men, that they may glorify your Father which is in heaven? Mat. 5.16.  
You are much out in your citation, 1 King. 18.21. God and Baal are repugnant, God and his Church are not. Our sooting is fast, 'tis you serve not God right, that obey not his Church in the truth. In this obedience we follow him; nor hold we it an indifferent thing so to do, but necessary always. Always to be morigerous, though not at all times, and in all places, necessary to express such outward acts of obedience.    

I'll now take leave of the first part, and leave it the first part of an Ode.  

Horat. l. 2. 〈◊〉. 13.  Ille & nefasto te posuit die,  
Quicunque primum, & Sacrilega manu  
Produxit arbos, in nepotum  
Perniciem, opprobriumque Pagi.     

PART. II. Wherein are Answers to Reasons pretended for bowing at the Name Jesus, from Phil. 2.9.10.  

SECTION I.  

OF all the R asons that I have hitherto met with, I profess I have not found any one that is truly grounded upon the Text, or any other correspondent Scriptures, but merely upon the fantasy of the brain. Only there is a show of a proof by reason that In the Name, is translated at the Name, which they press upon their People in this wise; The Text, say they, is as clear as the Sun for this practice, doth it not say expressly, at the Name of jesus every knee shall bow? Can there be any thing more plain? 
* There is a great difference between these 2 phrases, In the name of jesus, which is the Power of jesus, and at the Name, or appellation jesus, as there is between these two, In the Name of the King, that is, the King's authority, and at the Name King.  I have already answered this, therefore I will be silent now; only here I seriously admonish these men, to unteach such vain doctrines. I answer them, there is nothing more obscure and senseless, than such an Interpretation; making In the Name of jesus, to be meant at the mention of the Name jesus; for I have proved before, no Scripure can warrant this Exposition. But if they will needs have it so meant here, I will produce a Text that may make as much for adoration at God's Name, as this Text for the Name jesus, Psal. 63.4. Thee will I bless while I live, I will lift up my hands in thy Name: What Name this i●, the first We see shows, it is God's Name; If then In the Name of jesus be meant at the naming of jesus, what reason can be given why In the Name of God, may n●t as well be meant At the naming of God? If then by this exposition we be bound in the one place, to bow the knee at the naming of jesus, we are as well bound by th● other place, to lift up our hands at the naming, of God. But it be not meet so to understand the Psalmist in the one place, it is not meet so to understand the Apostle in the other place.  

Answer.  
Here are pretended Answers indeed, and can be nothing save pretences. We reason not for bowing at the bare Name Jesus, but for the bowing at the Name of jesus. Yet, what have you got by this dealing? See what? You keep the genitive case in your title of Superstitious Jesu-worship, to show your impiety: and in your discourse change it, to make the world believe that we are Idolatrous. Both hath hitherto been visible to every eye, and will be more in the end. And that it will, let the Reader note how you oppose, answer, and reply in this second, for and against, as the Spirit moves you.  
Your profession in the front of your first Section, I answer with a profession that I know not what you have met with all, but this I see, that where you met with any thing that we own, you were either blind, or would not read it, or possessed with a fanatike fury, that makes all things seem other than they are.  
A show of proof you confess, because, in, is read, at; But are you not like the man, who so hated the light, that when the day appeared, the Windows must be shut to keep him still in darkness?  
Who say the Text is as clear as the Sun for this practice, you do not Name, I am sure our practice is by, and in the light of the Sun. If the context be animadverted, no cloud doth interpose. See my Antiteichisma. Your Asterisk, or marginal note, is answered in Part 1. Sect. 1. and 4. and 15. and ever where you are remembered to join the Name and the sense.  
Your admonition● to unteach such vain doctrine, is worth as little as your proof: this is refelled before, and that rejected now. For the T xt you urge, is strong enough to confirm us. Psal. 63.4. Thus will I magnify thee all my life, and lift up my hands in thy Name. Is here no outward act with the inward? Is it not in the time of confession, when the Psalmist prayed, and praised the Lord? And is it not in and at the Name of the Lord, that is, when in his heart, and with his tongu●, he magnified the Lord by and in his own Attribute? This was the custom of old: Moses praying, spread his hands unto the Lord, Exod. 3.29, 30. Solomon praying, stretched out his toward Heaven, 1 King 8.22. It was the Ceremony of the Priest, 
Vid. Schind. ad rad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  when he blessed, or called the Jehovah on the people, to lift up his hands. Our Saviour at his departure lifting up his hands, blessed his Apostles, Luk. 24.50. And in the Primitive times, when the Name of God was used in prayers, 
Tertul. 〈◊〉 orat. c. 12.13.  and praises, outward humility was seen. It ever was, and will be the use, when God's Name is in hand, to show some token of inward submission.  
For my part, I will ever, either by uncovering the head, or by bowing, or by lifting up the hands, some way or other, at the Name of God, whilst the Name is in hand, in preaching, or praying, or praising, express my inward subjection.    

For the translation, though I do not question it, yet in my poor judgement, if it had been translated In the Name, as it is in the Original, the same phrase being never translated at the Name in any other place of Scripture, but in this place only, (though in as hard places as this) it would have prevented that great offence which ignorant men have taken by it for the practice of this will-worship, and mueh restrained superstitious Teachers from pressing it upon the consciences of their people, by reason of this translation. But certainly such Teachers have much to answer for, for teaching such doctrine, when they cannot but know, that no Scripture will bear them out in such an Exposition.  

Answer.  
You are much deceived, 'tis not the translation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, at, makes this a will-worship: 'twas in practise before, either Beza, or any other had translated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this place, ad. Your correcting-judgement of our translation, makes your cause the worse, and teacheth the people, who have thought well of your great reading, that you cannot justify the slanders, wherewith in this very argument you have laden the Church of England in your Pulpit. You have your time, that God may do his Worke.  
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 
Hesiod.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
But we will again, by the help of God, discuss the cause uprightly.     

SECTION II.  
Another Reason is this.  

THe Name Jesus, say they, 
Zanchius on Phil, 2.9.  was the most despised and contemptible Name. Therefore God will have it honoured, when it is mentioned, above other Names. 
Page Iust. of bowing, P. 42.  I answer, jesus Christ the great Rabbi and Doctor of his Church, hath no where taught them to reason so: The Text cannot with any sense bear this Reason; for as I have showed before, the Apostle argues from the humiliation of Christ's Person, to the advancement of his Person, not from a Name to a Name. The Apostle doth not say, that the Name jesus was humbled, therefore he doth not mean that the said Name was exalted. Therefore, because it hath no light from God's Word, this answer might be sufficient: but because it is a reason much relied upon, and ignorant men that know little else, have learned it exactly from their Teachers, I will encounter with it, and make it manifest, that there is no strength or soundness in the said reason.  

Answer.  
Though there needs no reason beside the command of the Text, yet because you should not, nor any else think no reason can be given for it, Zanchy and Doctor Page render this for one, viz. it was an humble Name.  

justifi. of bowing, p. 32.  It is not with God as it is with men: we exalt for Greatness, he for Goodness: we magnify men for Power, and Majesty; he for Poverty, Humility, and Mercy. That's his reason for his so reasoning, and ours too. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 1. 10.  
Christ taught us so to do, howsoever you seem to thwart the great Rabbi and Doctor of his Church: 'Twas his Doctrine, L●k 18.14. He that humbleth himself, shall be exalte●. Of it he hath given himself an example, joh. 13.15. and he hath made it a Law, Math. 16.24. who will go to him, must obey it: and the Apostle wills here, Verse the fifth, that the same mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus, if we, like him, will ever attain glory.  
The Consequence speaks plain, whilst your Reason stands mute.  
The Apostle doth not say, say you, that the Name Jesus was humbled; therefore he doth not mean that the said Name was exalted.  
But he doth say, that Jesus was humbled; and being he was humbled in that Name, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for this cause his Name also was exalted, as before, Part 1. Sect. 1. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 3. Pag. 16.  
Encounter whilst you will, the more you do, the weaker you.    


First then I deny the Antecedent; the Name jesus did not suffer above other Names; It cannot be well proved, that this Name suffered at all; For no man denied Christ this Name, but both enemies and friends gave it him; It was the Person, not the Name that suffered, neither did Christ suffer for this Names sake. When joseph and Daniel, Types of Christ, were abused and persecuted, can any say, that their proper Names suffered? neither can it be truly said, that the Name jesus properly suffered, when Christ himself suffered.  
Their main proof of this Reason they produce from joh. 19.19. Where Pilate set up Christ's title over his head upon the Cross, jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews. This, they say, was done to him in scorn, so that his Name jesus was made an execration say they, I answer, it cannot be proved that this Title was set up at all in scorn. judicious Master Calvin on that place, is of another mind, For thus he saith; Pilaticonsilium fuit etc. It was pilate's policy saith he, that he might revenge himself of the jews, who by their obstinate importunity had forced him to punish an innocent Person, to condemn the whole Nation in the Person of Christ. So by his judgement this title was a reproach to the jewish Nat●on, rather than to Christ. He addeth yet further, Atqui in Christo hoc extraordinarium fuit, quod sine ignominia titulus opponitur, This was extraordinary in Christ, that without any reproach high title is set up.  
Secondly, The offence that the Chief Priests of the jews took at this Title, proves it not to be scornful to Christ, who were displeased with Pilate for it; which if it had been reproachful, they burning in malice against our Saviour, would have liked it well enough. Thirdly, Had it been set up in scorn, it was not in any quarrel to the Name, 〈◊〉 ●o the Person. Fourthly, Had it been to a Name, yet was it not to the Name jesus, but the Title King of the jews.   

Answer.  
You may deny what you will; If you prove no better then by denying, you shall never be beleev●d by me. 'Tis true the Jews denied not Christ this Name, though they acknowledged not the virtue in him. But they did deny the other, Lord, Christ, etc. and therefore the argument is against yourself. He was not reviled in them, but in this. Y●a they made it a Name of Scorn; cut off the last letter thereof, that it among them might not signify a Saviour; and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in derision they say, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Schind ad rad. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   
Your evasion next is very poor: For 'tis most ridiculous to say that joseph and Daniel, being abused under a Name, were not abused in the Name, under which they were abused. Under what Name Christ suffered, in the same Name suffered he.  
Suppose next, and I think, it cannot be proved, that Pilate did set up the Title on the Cross in scorn of him; yet, I believe, that by Divine Instinct, he did it to upbraid the Jews. And this the Reverend Bishop Andrew's hath observed to be a kind of Omen, or presage of the exalting his Name.  
Master Calvin therefore might well call it, Extraordinarium in Christo; For acquitting Christ, Pilate thereby shown that jesus blood was upon the head of the Jews, Nor is this all, Pilat wrote the Title in the three principal Languages, and by this praeludium you might have known, 
Calvin in joh. 19 v. 19  if you had well heeded Master Calvin, that the Lord declared the time to be at hand, quo filii sui Nomen ubique innotesceret, wherein the Name of his Son should be every where lifted up.  
Cast up your gains now, and see if this will prove the Name not hateful to the Jews. No; it will not. For this was Pilat's act not theirs, and they opposed it withal their might. joh. 19.20.21.22.  
Your Secondly, Thirdly, and Fourthly, are nothing: For we do not say that Pilate caused the Title to be opposed in scorn of him; but rather to the ignominy of the Jews, who crucified one Innocent, and their own King. This you should prove, that the Name of jesus was not a laughingstock to the Jews, Scorned, Vilified, despited by them, this you cannot do●.    

But the truth is, the most Glorious Names of our Saviour; as God, Son of God, 
Page Iust. of bowing, pag. 42. & alibi.  Christ, jehovah, suffered rather in him than the Name jesus. The reason that M. Page gives to prefer the Name jesus above these Names, doth not satisfy, for, says he, these Names are glorious and lofty Names in themselves, and therefore need no advancement; but the Name jesus was an humble and lowly Name, therefore God advanced it, I say, this Reason is not satisfactory; for the Question is not; what these Names are simply considered in themselves, but what they were in Christ in the time of his humiliation; As the Question is not, whether we are to bow at the Name jesus simply considered, but at that Name in jesus Christ, I contend then, that these aforesaid Glorious Names were more humbled Names in Christ, than the Name jesus, For jesus was his proper Name given him at his Circumcision, but these Names are Titles of his honour: As Henry and King; so is jesus and Christ, saith learned Bishop Babingion. 
Works, Pag. 245.  Christ in respect of these Glorious Names suffered exceedingly; For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, He emptied himself of the Glory of these Names. The jews generally would not give them, nor suffer them to be giv●n unto him. Whosoever did but once open his mouth to ascribe any of these Titles of honour to our Saviour, presently he suffered for it, fo● whosoever did but confess him to be the Christ, was put out of the Synagogue, job. 9.22. When at any time he did but take the due honour of any of th●se N●me● to himself, they immediately intended mischief against him. joh. 5.18. The jews sought to kill him, because he said God was his Father, making himself equal with God: So joh. 10.33. For thy good works, say they, we stone thee not, but that thou being a man makest thyself God So Mat. 26, 65. As soon as he had conf ssed that he was the Christ, The high Priest cried out against him, that he blasphemed. So that it is evident, that our Saviour suffered the pain of loss, in respect of these Glorious Names, not having the honour of them, and not only so, but he suffered also the pain of feeling in himself and his members, when at any time, he or they did but ascribe the honour of these Names unto him. Now that these Names, and not the Name jesus, are suffering Names, I will illustrate it by this Simile. Suppose the Subjects of some King, whose proper Name is john, or Henry, suppose, I say, his own Subjects should hate him, rise up against him, and at length kill him, not because he is called john or He●ry, but because he will be their King, as indeed he is. I would fain● know in respect of what Name this King suffereth, his Name Io●n, or Henry, or his Title King; no m●n can say it is for his proper Name, but for his Kingly Title, which they will not give unto him: In like manner our Saviour, whose proper Name is jesus, which Name others had as well as he, he is God, he is Christ, he is King. The jews never question him for his proper Name, but they will not give him his Titles of honour, they will not suffer him to reign over them, Luk. 19.27. but because he takes this due honour to himself, they reproach him, and kill him; in all reason therefore, these Glorious Names are suffering Names, and not the Name jesus.  

Answer.  
You do but say, that other Names suffered most in him; and if you have no more ground, your purchase is not great.  
Doctor Page's reason doth not satisfy you; you can prove, that God proceeds not from Humility unto Glory, can you? That's it you have undertaken: but I believe you'll leap off like a Hare in the Snow, for fear of the Hunter.  
Your own may direct you; and the question is, in, or under what Name Christ was most derided? We did not, we will not take the Name simply in itself, but in its sense; and in the sense, he could not suffer by any other: For none of his enemies acknowledged any of the other in him. Jehovah, or Lord, Elohim, or God, were Names highly reverenced by them; and in the Name of Messiah, or Christ, they expected the Kingdom. They scorned not these, but scorned to attribute them unto Jesus. And because you cannot prove, that they were abased by the Jews, you will that he made them vile himself.  
For, say you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he emptied himself of the glory of those Names.  
Mistake not: you are from your purpose, unless you dare say, he cast away his glory.  
His emptying of himself, was only the voluntary assumption of our flesh. And this he might do, and did, and was still Lord, and Christ, and King.  
But the jews would not give them unto him: unto whom? unto jesus: Then they did not scorn them, but disdained that jesus should be Lord, or Christ, or King.  
Your several places, john 9.22. etc. confirm no more, then that they did not, would not, acknowledge jesus Lord and Christ. And so the Scorn was still at jesus, that he should be Lord, Christ, King. 'Twas he had the pain of Loss and Feeling; they hated nothing more, then that he, that jesus should be Superintendent.  
Your Supposition therefore is false: For that time was not as ours. You do but suppose, because you like not a King, that the Jews would have none. 'Tis not so; they would not have this man to reign over them, Luc. 19.14. This man they hate, this Jesus shall not be King, whosoever be.  
The evil that was, was at the Person under his proper Name: And therefore the jews desired Pilate not to write the King, but that he said, I am the King of the Jews. They express no ill against the Dignity, but could not endure that Jesus should be so glorious.    


Answ. 2. I deny the Consequent; We are not bound to bow the knee at the sound of that Name, which is the most suffering Name. Neither can this Text, or any other Scripture, make good this reason; there is nothing in the Text spoken of a bare Title, but only of the Person of our Saviour.  
2. The reason will be more evident (if it were lawful to reason without book,) for bowing at the Names, God, Christ, or King, etc. than the Name jesus; for thus I reason:  
Look what Names Christ, in the time of his humiliation laid down, and at the mention of which received disdain and reproach, it is meet, that in the time of his exaltation he should receive honour at the mention of those Names, rather than at the mention of that Name, which he laid not down, and at the mention of which, he received no disdain and reproach.  
But Christ in the time of his humiliation, laid not down his Name jesus, but he laid down his Glorious Names, as Lord, God, Christ, King, and at the mention of these he suffered disdain and reproach, not at the mention of the Name Jesus. Therefore it is meet, that Christ now in the time of his exaltation should be honoured at the mention of his Glorious Names, Lord, God, Christ, King etc. rather than at the mention of the Name jesus. So we see plainly, that if there were a reason in the Consequent, it makes not so much for the Name jesus, as for the Names above-spoken. If it be replied, that Christ having been humbled in his Name jesus, it is therefore necessary, that he should receive honour in that Name, being exalted. I answer, if their meaning be this, that because Christ was called by the Name jesus being humbled, therefore he ought to be bowed to at the sound of that Name being exalted, it is a senseless reason without any proof, consequent, or ground, therefore let them prove it, or cease ever to mention it. If this were necessary, why were not those Worthies joseph and Daniel, Types of Christ's humiliation, as of his exaltation, by a special appointment of God bowed to, when they were advanced, at their distinct Names of joseph and Daniel, being so called when they were humbled? In another sense it is true in Christ (though it be not an ever-binding rule) for he shall be always honoured by the Church in that Name, which shall not be laid down.   

Answer.  
You have proved nothing against the Antecedent; and we shall see as little against the consequent. You are still upon the old foil; there is nothing, we know, spoken in the Text of a bare Title. Who talks of a bare Title, save yourself? Can you endure our Saviour should have a Name, and mind him in the Name? If you can, then do what you can, you shall never arrogate what you list.  
But it seems lawful for you to reason without book. For I see here, first that you know not what is the Name, whether God, or Christ, or King, etc.  
Secondly, you care not which it be, so it be not jesus.  
Thirdly, that you confound the Titles of honour, with the personal N●me.  
Fourthly, that you will not believe the Text, which saith that jesus was humbled, and jesus is exalted.  
Fifthly, that you contradict yourself in your first part, where your main contention is that the Name is Power, and Glory.  
Sixthly, that you oppose the Text, introducing a Plurality of Names, where is Speech, but of one.  
In your Syllogism is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a changing of the question, and a bringing in of many. The six before are all in this.  
But an other answer you must have, and this is it.  
You were told before that Christ laid down no Name: He kept all that ever he was, though in a peculiar manner he by dispensation veiled his Glory. A Name he received, and that is his personal Name jesus.  
That doth reach him fully, Christ doth not: For God could not be anointed. Nor is God his full Name; for he is man also.  
jesus doth both; His full Name therefore is his proper Name.  
What occasion then soever was taken at his other Attributes, which moved the Jews, their hatred came still to jesus. They disdained that he a Carpenter, Son should be called Lord, or God, or Christ, or King. Those Titles offended not them, but at them they took cause to be offended with jesus. Disdaining that he should be such a one, they deadly hated him, when he was called such a one.  
Now I'll tell you what here appears, even a composition of Syllogisms.  
In the Major of two, is, Confusio terminorum, and, falsum suppositum too.  
You suppose that Christ laid down his Names, Lord, God, etc. Which, if you mean, as the Soul was laid down from the body, is Arrianisme. But if you will mollify, laid down, by veiling, concealing &c. as I wish it might by all be understood, than the question is changed, not only from Name to Names, but from the Name scorned, to the Name veiled. The question is not of Names most concealed, but of the Name scorned most.  
There is also false composition a bene conjunctis ad male divisas. For, what mean you by, at the mentioning of these, Lord, God, etc. but that when he was called Lord, or God, etc. he suffered disdain? And so it is true in the conjunction, not in the division. True, in composito, he was Scorned, when called Lord, God, etc. but that therefore the Name Lord, or God, etc. was Scorned in simplici termino is false.  
And thus your own argument is strong against yourself. When jesus was called Lord, or Son of God, or Christ, etc. the Jews hated the very Name of jesus. Not deriding the Name Lord, or Christ, etc. they could not endure either in composito; that is, that jesus should be Lord, or God, or Christ, etc. So jesus, not Lord, nor God, etc. was still the Name of contempt.  
The reason that you subjoin, for bowing at the Name, they own it, that will, I do not. The reason that I give, is, because God hath highly exalted it by the Union and for our Salvation. And one reason, that it is highest exalted, is because it was lowest humbled. See my Antiteich Tract. 3. p. 16.  
Your inference from the Type is not against this. Yet you may know, that when joseph and Daniel were advanced, they were advanced in, at, and under the Name of joseph, and Daniel.  
And I may tell you that if, in the foot of this Section, by Church you mean the Triumphant also, you contradict yourself, where you said that jesus should not be mentioned hereafter Sect. 8.  
For aught therefore that you have here brought forth, I may close this Section with that of Erasmus, in his Preface on this Text, that unto Christ, for his humility famous, was given the Super excellent Name,  iam ad jesu illius consputi & crucifixi Nomen, se flectat, & submittatomne genu, that at the Name of that jesus, on whom the Jews spit, and whom they Crucified, every knee should bow and submit.     

SECTION III.  

THirdly, Thus they reason, We receive more benefit by the Name jesus, than by any other Name; for it signifieth our Saviour: And in this sense they prefer it above other Names, yea above jehovah itself. Some have openly taught this stuff, jesus is more excellent than jehovah, because Jehovah delivered the people from the Land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, 
justifi. of bowing▪ p. 47.  but jesus delivers us from the wrath to come. Yea, Master Page himself speaks very meanly (in comparison) of the Name Lord, which is the same with jehovah, (for every where, where the Septuagints find the Name jehovah, they translate it by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lord) Yea, though he do acknowledge, that the Name Lord doth betoken the Deity. For thus he saith, What tell you me of Lord, give me a Samaritan, that may bind up my wounds. And in other places he prefers the Name jesus, before Christ and Lord.  

Answer.  
I am hearty sorry that obedience will not be, unless a reason be seen of what God commands. And, if any reason would serve, methinks this is the reason of all reasons, that jesus is our Saviour,  
How his Name is, and how above other Names, to God, to us, and in it s●lfe, is at large in my Antiteichis.  
Some have indeed taught this doctrine, what stuff so●ver you count it, that Jesus is a farther expression than jehovah, ●o have I, and justify it in my Antiteich. Tract. 3. Pag. 20. And if I said, that God in the Name of jehovah delivered the people out of the house of bondage, say I not more, in saying, that he in the Name of jesus delivered us from the tyranny of the Devil?  
I doubt you love not jesus, that love not those who so advance his Name, that every Attribute of God is advanced in it. For the glory that God hath of us by all his Attributes, is given unto him in the Name of jesus. He hath so appointed, and we should so do.  
Doctor Page then doth not speak meanly of the Name Lord, when he saith, that in the Name of God, is no comfort without the Name of jesus; but the comfort that Christians have, is that our God is a jesus. No fear of diminishing God's honour by the exalting of his Son. For it is both God's will that he should be so exalted, Phil. 2.9. and To the glory of God the Father, that he is so, verse 11.    


Answer 1. I desire to know, what they mean by this reasoning. If this be their meaning, that the Title jesus did more for us than the Titles, Christ, jehovah, or Lord, it is most ridiculous; yea it is Idolatry to attribute our Salvation to bare names, or titles, which our Saviour himself wrought for us. But if this be their meaning, that the Person Jesus is greater, and did more for us, than the Person Christ, jehovah, or Lord; this is as senseless as the other, for First, this will divide jesus from Christ, and make Jesus and Christ two Persons. 2. I● will separate jesus from jehovah, so making Christ, no● God, or above God; and so in effect deny him to be a Saviour; for if he had not been jehovah, he could not have saved us.  
2. It is an absurd kind of reasoning to attribute temporal deliverance to jehovah, and Salvation to jesus only, for as much as jehovah is the Author of all good, temporal, spiritual, and eternal; yea our Salvation in Scripture is specially ascribed to jehovah, or Lord, as Isa. 43.11. I, even I, am jehovah, and besides me there is no Saviour. So Vers. 14. This saith jehovah your Redeemer. So Isa. 12.2. The Church shall say, Behold, God is my Salvation, I will trust, and not be afraid, for the Lord jehovah is my strength, and my Song, he is also become my Salvation. So Deut. 33.29. Psal. 84.11. Isa. 26.4. And in very many places besides. It is therefore beyond measure absurd, to prefer jesus above jehovah, and to ascribe Salvation to jesus only; for if the Name jesus be above jehovah, of necessity it must be above the names God the Father, and God the Holy Ghost; and so either way the second Person will be made greater than the first, or third Person.   

Answer.  
To your demand I have often made answer, that we take not the Name without the sense; nor do we make comparisons between the Persons; nor hold we that jesus is one, jehovah another, Lord another. We do distinguish the Essential Name, and the Relations, and not divide the essence, nor separate the Persons. And distinguishing between Names and Titles of the same Person make not Christ too.  
If we did, as you do here insinuate, and, in your third rank of absurdities at the tenth, do openly charge the Church, we should by your first reason be Nestorians; by your second Arrians, Socinians, as impious as yourself.  
To your second answer I reply, that you are very absurd to think we attribute temporal salvation to jehovah, and not eternal. But this we affirm, that God was in the Old Testament, known by the Name of Jehovah, but in the New more fully by the Name of jesus. Yet not as if jehovah were aliud, and aliud jesus, one thing and another, but the same essentially. For the one-most God is the three Persons; and so Salvation is the work of the whole Trinity.  
The places you cite are plain for us, the same, jehovah Elohim, Lord God, which is the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is our Saviour, our Redeemer.  
And because hitherto, unless you would be conceived a Tritheite, you have writ nothing to any purpose, I'll tell you something, if you will promise me to remember it, to great purpose. This is it. Though our Redemption be a work of the whole Trinity, yet by the eternal Counsel, it was terminated only in the Person of the Son of God. He therefore is set forth, that in and by him the other Persons with him may have the glory.  
For thus I Reason:    


Whosoever hath a Name greater than others, is therefore more excellent than those whose Names are not so great.  
Therefore, If the Name jesus, which is a Name peculiar to the second Person, be a greater Name than jehovah, which he hath common to him with the other Persons, or grea●er than the name God the Father, or God the Holy Ghost, it will follow expressly, that the second Person is greater than the first or third Person.  
The first part of the Argument is p oved from Heb. 1.4. where the Apostle proves that Christ was better than the Angel's viz. because he had obtained a more excellent name than they. This is also confirmed by the Analogy of the Scriptures; for I have showed before, that Name above another, doth always denote the excellency of the Person above another, that hath not so great a Name; as Deut. 26.19. The Lord promiseth his people that will keeps his Commandments, that He will make them high above all Nations, in praise, in name, and in honour. So Isa. 56.5. The Lord promiseth to the Eunuches that will keep his Sabbaths, a Name better than of sons and daughters, that is, he will bestow upon them a greater excellency and honour, than those that have sons and daughters, viz. in that respect, or t●ey shall be more excellent by that name that he would give them, than they should have been by having sons and daughter●,  
Therefore to affirm that jesus is above jehovah, doth expressly sight against this Text of 1 Cor. 15.27. where God having subjected all things under Christ's feet, hath yet excepted himself, that did put all things under him. Seeing therefore he hath excepted himself, and hath not subjected himself to Christ: by the selfsame reason he hath not subjected his Name to Christ's Name, for if he had, by the reason above-specified, he had also preferred his Son above himself.   

Answer.  
I fi●st tell you, your supposition is false: It was never, nor ever shall be granted by me, that the second Person hath a greater Name than the first. If your argument then be against me, 'tis turned to nothing.  
But aim at whom you will, I care not, my Secondly shall be as you expect. Your antecedent holds only, where there may be the relation of inferiority and Superiority; not, in divinis, where one is all, and every one in see the same. You may therefore conclude nothing hence against us, unless you can prove, that the Holy-Holy-Holy Lord is not one God, and that the Name of Jesus, by special dispensation imposed on the second Person as incarnate, is not essential:  
Remember now, what but now I bade you remember, viz. It was the eternal will of God, and to a singular purpose, namely, that he who being in the form of God, and was made man, might not be held inferior unto God.  
Add this, that the second Person was ever the Person which dealt for us, in whom God manifested himself unto us, and through whom only we have access unto the Father. Bring these together, and 'tis most evident, that the higher we advance jesus, the more we glorify God. No fear of setting him too high, who cannot be sufficiently honoured, unless he be at highest. For he is set at the right hand of the Throne of God, Heb. 12.2. 
Chrysost. in Loc.  This that Christ is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Father, is the highest demonstration of the Father's glory, saith S. chrysostom. See my Antiteich. Tract. 2. p. 7. 8. Tract. 9 p. 89.  
To the proof of your antecedent I answer, the excellency of Name argues Superiority of Persons, that by Nature may admit subordination; not where every one is the same in the unity of essence, and are equally honoured in and at the supereminent Name.  
Nor can this contrary that of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 15.27. For we meddle not with the Persons, with the significant Name we do. Yet I may safely and will say, that as the Son of God was humbled in our nature, and not the Father, nor the Holy-Ghost, so was he exalted, and yet neither inferior to the Father in the Humiliation, nor in the Exaltation superior, as in Part 1. Sect. 1. This cannot be denied, unless you dare deny the other.    


The Answers which I have received to this Argument, are these three, yet none of them sufficient in my judgement.  
First, it is said, that the ground and rule above-specified, holds between Christ and the Angels, and so it will hold between Christ and all the rest of the creatures, where ●here is a manifest difference, but it will not hold between the Persons of the Trinity, because they are equal, and cannot be made unequal. This answer is very frivolous; For the Apostle gives this reason why Christ is better than the Angels, viz. because he had obtained a better Name than they, which argument had been weak and uncertain, and he could never have made good what he affirmed, if his ground and rule could ever have failed, A true rule is a perfect rule, or no rule at all.  
2. True it is, that it is indeed impossible, that the three Persons should be made unequal, yet may one be preferred before, or under valued beneath another by some men's opinion, or practise. For as Arrius under valued the Son beneath the Father, in that he attributed unto him a Name below the Name of the Father: And as we prove against Arrius, that Christ is God equal with the Father, because of the identity, and sameness, and equality of his names, and attributes with the Father, being called jehovah, Son of God; called omniscient, eternal, etc. So it will be evidently proved by necessary consequence, against these men that hold that opinion, howsoever they positively deny it, that they are in some degree in an extreme with Arrius, preferring Christ above the Father, because they attribute unto him a Name greater than the Name of the Father.   

Answer.  
Answers you have received, and insufficient three; from whom you might have said, that they might have done something for themselves.  
The first pertains to that which I gave before. How weak it is, your Reply will show. Weak, said I? Nay, frivolous yours: For the blows you made, have sunk you to the ground.  
You say before, the Apostle proves, Hebr. 1.4. that Christ is more excellent than the Angels, because he obtained a more excellent Name than they. The Rule than is permanent, whereof it was made a rule; and the argument as strong, as he was mightier than the creature. Had the comparison been, if I may speak it, between the most equal three, it must have held where it was a comparison; but 'twas not, could not be there. Yet I may tell you, that the Name of Jesus is the highest manifesting Name of God, which was by dispensation put upon the Word Incarnate, and made proper to him, in whom only God was to be, and is, and shall for ever be most highly manifested. He than is the highest manifested Person, God be thanked, he is, or we should have no peace with God. Mistake me not, in forma visibili, I say, the highest manifested in a visible form, yet all are coequal and coeternal all. No disparagement this to any of the Persons, they take glory all in this. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9 p. 92. 93.  
In the second reply to the first answer, you do again show your ill winding Art. Here you would intimate an error, 
Dang consequence in 2. Resp. 3. in 3. R. 8.  and among your dangerous consequences, note us twice for advancing the Son above the Father.  
Was this ever heard of among Christians? Or how can this be done? For the more the Son is glorified, the Father is glorified the more, whilst the Father, is not, cannot be honoured, save in the high advancement of the Son. A very dangerous consequence sure, that is without all possibility of danger.  
He is at the brink of Arrianisme, ●hat undervalues the Name of Jesus, beneath the Name of Lord. The Scriptures maintain the equality of the Son, with the Father, by giving him the Inheritance, and you his inequality, by taking away the Birthright of his Name. I never read of an Heresy on our hand, but you are on the other, where Arrius falling, was condemned.    


Secondly, They answer, that the second Person, though of himself he be equal with the Father, yet in respect of us he is greater, because of the work of redemption which he hath wrought for us. I reply, This is a strange answer, and very unsound: for First, the Scriptures do every where as much extol the love of God in giving his Son, as the love of Christ in giving himself. Secondly, This answer doth not agree with the Text, for the Text enjoineth the bowing therein, not only to us men, but generally to all creatures, over whom Christ's Name is advanced, for therefore is every knee of every thing to bow to Christ, because he having a Name above every Name, hath also a Name above their Names, Therefore if the Son have a Name above his Father's Name, by the same reason the Father must bow to the Son.  
Thirdly, By this answer they contradict themselves, for when they be challenged that in bowing at the Name jesus only, they honour the Son above the Father, they deny it, and affirm, that they honour all alike at the Name jesus, which indeed they cannot affirm: if the second Person be greater to us than the other Persons, than we to whom he is greater, must honour him more than the other, that to us are not so great. Even as to the supreme Magistrate in a Kingdom, we give a greater honour than to those that to us are not so great as he.   

Answer.  
Your second answer received, I believe, you know not whence, shall not by me be in terminis abetted.  
This is all I have owned, or will, that though the Father and the Son be equal, yet the Son is the Person set forth unto us; that in whom our Redemption is terminated alone, in him the other may be honoured only.  
This, your first reply will not reach. For it makes no discrepance of will, but shows that the love of the Father is declared in his Son.  
Your second is answered before Sect. 3. and 5. and 7. and 10. so often as often it came.  
The inference that follows there, is on a false supposition. For we give not the Son a Name above the Father, the highest Name of God we do, and in a peculiar manner, as God by dispensation gave it him, 
Aug. Epist. 274.  in whom our redemption is completed. Hoc Nomen ex dispensatione misericordiae, susceptaque humanitatis assumptum est.  
In your third reply, I must again put you in mind that our dispute is about the Name; which is the highest Name of God? not the Person; which is the greatest? Yet I vary not the dignity of any, in saying that the Son alone is, principium & terminus, with the Father, and the Spirit preparing, the efficient, but in satisfying, the subject of our redemption. Redemption therefore is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by excellency his. He was deputed to it by consent of the glorious Trinity, and therefore we are bound to acknowledge the right his, to the glory of God the Father.    

Thirdly, Thus it is answered, that the Name jesus is a common Name to every Person in Trinity, and therefore though it be above other Divine Names, yet it doth not make inequality between the Persons, and in bowing at that only, they honour all alike. Now thus they go about to prove their Assertion. God say they, was called Saviour before Christ was incarnate, and jesus and Saviour is all one, therefore the Name jesus denominates every Person of the Trinity. First I reply, If Saviour & jesus be all one; why then do they not bow as well at the sound of Saviour, as jesus, for their reason is the same for both? Secondly I affirm, that they are not all one: the word Saviour indeed, before Christ was incarnate, shown what God would do in the fullness of time, viz. send his Son to be our Redeemer; but it is no proper Name; jesus is a proper Name, never appropriated ●o the second Person till Christ was incarnate: and some good Authors affirm, that it is the Name of his humanity only, because given him upon his Incarnation, and he being called generally by that Name in the days of his flesh; and sundry men being so called as Types of Christ, though (if it be so) it do denominate unto us his whole Person, God and Man, 
Sermon on Phil. 2.  because of the inseparable union of the two natures. But Bishop Andrew's assertion here is very strange, who affirms that the Name jesus, is the proper and chief Name of God; but how can it be so, when it is not the proper Name of God's eternity? but was given unto the second Person in time by reason of man's fall. But the Name jehovah, denotes Gods eternal Being, and therefore is the proper and chief Name of God indeed. And, how doth the Bishop agree with himself in that place? For thus he saith, The Person is taken out of our sight, all that we can do, cannot reach unto it, but his Name he hath left behind to us, that we may show by our reverence, and respect to it, how much we esteem him. For if the Name jesus do denominate the Person of Christ, as taken out of our sight, than it denominates only his humanity, which only was in our sight, for the Deity was never in our sight: But if it be true, as he saith, that jesus is the proper Name of Christ's Deity, then in this sense he is not gone from us, but is with us always unto the end of the world, Mat. 28.20. and lives and dwells in the hearts of his Saints, Eph. 3.17.  

Answer.  
The third received answer, if from me, you had it thus, jesus is an essential Name, though not attributed to God, till in the fullness of time God put it on the Son of Man, and at his exaltation, declared it the highest, and the Person to be the Lord God, which is the blessed Trinity. Being therefore the highest expression of God, it cannot make one higher than another: because one is all, and every one the same God. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9 p. 94. 95,  
To your first reply, I answer, that Saviour is, expositio Nominis, an exposition of, not the Name.  
The second is not against my assertion. I confess, the Name was given in type to Joshuah, not imposed on the second Person till the Word was incarnate. But with your Good Authors, I shall not affirm, that the Name of Jesus is a Name of the Humanity only. If you be so inclined, 'tis no marvel that you slight the Name, and them that honour it. Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius, chrysostom, Augustine, Bernard, etc. thought otherwise.  
Nor need you think it strange, that Bishop Andrew's calls it one of Gods own Names, and the Chief: for it being given in time, it's not the less, nor the less his. Jehovah, in former time given, is yet the Name of his Eternity; jesus in the latter, the Name of his eternal Mercy; and of all the Chief, because all other Names of God are poured forth in it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p. 21.  
He goes beyond his own Reading, take it how you will, that will undertake to make the Bishop contradict himself. 'Tis wantonness in you to challenge him.  
The Name of Jesus, doth denominate his Person taken out of our sight; and yet it doth not follow, that then it denominates his Humanity only, unless you can make the Humanity his Person only. If you be, as you show, a Nestorian, or a Christolite, you may: I doubt you are a Gnostick, a Cerinthian, and can separate jesus from Christ.  
You were told, and from Saint Augustine too, that this Name is a Name of the whole Person, and so made by Dispensation: Will you then say, that the Person of Christ is with us, in, within us? You are b●side the Text in the cited places; for his Spirit is in us, not his Person: and so you should have said, unless you intent to raise a new Sect of Egidians. Christ's Person, not his Humanity only, is out of our sight, though his Spirit be in our hearts.    


Secondly, It is absurd to affirm, that nothing we can do can ●each to Christ's Person, because it is out of our sight: by the same reason, nothing that we do can reach to God the Father, or the Holy Ghost, because they are invisible, then farewell all Religion: If nothing that we can do can reach to Christ's Person, than the whole bowing can reach but to ●he Name, none to the Person, and to worship the Name without the Person, is gross Idolatry by their own confession. And how can these men affirm, that they honour the Three Persons alike at the name jesus, when nothing they do can reach to the Person of Christ?  
Thirdly, By the Bishop's reason, if we must bow at the Name of our Saviour, because he is not present, than we must not bow at the name jesus, which name, saith he, signifieth the Deity, which is always present, but at the name Christ, which saith he, though without ground, is the name of the humanity only, which is gone from us.   

Answer.  
Here is diversorum praedicamentorum confusio, a fallacious applying the word reach to worship, which the Reverend Bishop doth to the sight. The full answer is, Christ is out of the reach of our eyes, not out of the reach of our Faith. This was in Part 1. Sect. 8.  
The next consequence was reproved before in Part 1. Sect 8. We bowing at the Name in Christ's absence, bow not at it, because he is absent; but because it is his, and we are commanded so to do, and by it reach the Deity. And though God be every where, yet he is no where visible save in Christ.    

Secondly, If jesus be the proper and chief name of God, then should all those that were called ordinarily by that name (besides Christ) be called by the proper and chief name of God, which without horrible blasphemy could not be yielded unto. It is Anti-christs impiety to call himself God, 2 Thes. 2.9. Yet worthy men were called jesus, and never took any offence at it, and were never blamed for it. Seeing then the name jesus was given to the Second Person only upon his Incarnation, it cannot be the proper▪ and chief name of God, or of every Person in Trinity; and it not where denominates any other Person, but the Second Person only, therefore it is a name peculiar to the Second Person only.  

Answer.  
This was answered in the first Part, Sect. 1. and now is again thus. The son of Nun, etc. had it in type: the shadow they, but Christ is the substance.  
'Tis Antichrists impiety indeed, to exalt himself against all that is called God, 2 Thess. 2.4. So was it Arrius his Blasphemy, to detract from Jesus, and Menander's to be called Jesus. 'Twas otherwise with them, who in the Scriptures are styled Saviour's, or Gods; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these; but Christ is Jesus really, substantially.  
Nor doth the imposing of it at such a time, hinder it from being the Chief Name of God unto us, no more than Gods telling his Name jehovah unto Moses did, from being the greatest N●me unto the jews. And that it doth denominate the second Person only, is by Dispensation only.    

Lastly, This answer overthrows their own ground from the Text, for if the name jesus, be the name of the Three Persons, then cannot it be the name above every name in the Text, for that Name is proper only to the Son. For first, God gave him this Name, and that after his humiliation, therefore was it not a name naturally inherent in him as a Person of the Trinity, because he had it not before. Secondly, the Person only in the Text that suffered, received this Name, but neither the Person of the Father, nor the Holy Ghost suffered, but the Son only. Therefore neither the Father, nor Holy Ghost, received the Name above every Name, but the Son only.  

Answer.  
You are still put to shift, and here pitifully: For by the same Reply you make, your main Pillar in Part 1. Sect. 1. is fallen. I argue thus: Supereminent Power and Glory is not the Name above every Name, because the three Persons have supereminent Power and Glory. Will you deny your Answer here, or your Thesis there? The Reason is the same against you, as against us: For the Name above every Name is still proper to the second Person: What will you do? Either you must come home to me, and yield that the Name of jesus is made by special Dispensation proper, or destroy the whole force you have.  
And this I'll prove first, by your own First. For God gave him this, and that after his Humiliation; therefore it was not a Name naturally his, as a Person of the Trinity. That's yours.  
The like is mine against you. Be the Name above every Name supereminent Power and Glory, as you have hitherto contended, and given after the Humiliation; then supereminent Power and Glory was not naturally inherent in him, as a Person of the Trinity▪ Here is the very height of Arrianisme; and if you fly not to the gracious Dispensation, there is no avoiding the sixth Anathematisme of the Council of Ephesus.  
Secondly, by your Second, the Person only that suffered received the Name above every Name, which in your Tenet is supereminent Power and Glory; therefore neither the Father nor the Holy-Ghost, for neither of them suffered. Here again you confirm my opinion of you; and there is no way to help, unless you will confess, that the supereminent Power and Glory was made Christ's by the gracious Dispensation. And if you may, deny not me my ground, viz. that Jesus, the highest Name of God, is, gratia Vnionis, by the Union, and for our Salvation, without dislike, or inequality to any, made the proper Name of the second Person.  
The Reader sees your Game, and smiles at your Contention, to out-leape your Shadow. Such toys do but toil; Non enim relinquis, sed tecum semper circumsers absurditates: for you leave not, but still carry with you absurdities, and those very remote from the Truth.     

SECTION IU.  

But the reason is naught, why they prefer the name jesus above other Divine names, for signification sake, because it signifieth our Salvation. For who taught them to reason thus, have they received it from the Doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles? If they have, they must show where: It is abominable to teach for a doctrine the fantasy of the brain; but there is no show nor shadow for this reason punctually in this Text, or any other Scripture: This is answer sufficient, but by G●ds grace I will further encounter with it, and shall prove it a reason without reason indeed, and to be of a very fearful and dangerous consequence.  

Answer.  
Here are two Lines at first, that show the rest are to waste Ink and Paper. The Name jesus cannot be preferred for signification take; no, that it may not.  
Did any of the Prophets or Apostles say so? I will then believe you. But how if I prove what you deny? Shall none of your followers trust you any more?  
Look you in Exodus the 3.15. where God having told Moses his Name, saith, This is my Name for ever, and this is my memorial. Is not there a N●me for signification preferred? Matth. 1.21. Thou shalt call his Name jesus. Why? For he shall save his people from their sins: and there the Name is preferred for signification. Throughout the Old and New Testament, this is the ground; the highest sense makes the highest Name. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.  
'Tis this prefers the S. Scriptures: and if any man can find a Name that signifies nothing, worth any thing, you shall have all the Reason, and I none. Till you do, I and all men will laugh at your fearful and dangerous Consequence. But let me see how you encounter with this my abominable Fancy.    


First, If we must bow at the name jesus, because it signifieth our salvation, than we must rather bow at the name Christ, because this Name doth more fully and expressly signify our Salvation, than the Name jesus, (now these jesu-worshippers do not bow at the name Christ.) Thus saith learned Visinus; 
Catechis. p. 202.  jesus est proprium nomen Mediatoris, etc. jesus saith he, is the prope name of our Mediator; Christ as it were the Surname, For so is he jesus, that so he is also Christ. i e. a promised Saviour and Messiah: By both names his Office is designed, but by the Name more summarily than expressly; by the Surname more clearly and expressly; for the Surname Christ, doth denote the three certain parts of his Office, as namely, Prophetical, Priestly, and Kingly.  
I will illustrate this further by this Simile.  
If we should hear of some Potent King, that he is become a great Conqueror, hath achieved a noble Victory, and hath made a great conquest of his enemies, and hath wrought a great deliverance to his Subjects: this news indeed is something; but yet this general relation doth not so much satisfy, we desire further to hear of particulars; therefore if it shall be declared unto us, how the Battle was ordered, how he disposed his Army, and how the Victory was wrought; when particular Circumstances of the Conquest shall be fully related, by this means the Victory is more clearly manifested, and we rest better satisfied, and contented a great deal more this way than before, by the general signification of it.  
Thus it is concerning the Names jesus, and Christ. The Name jesus doth but in general show Christ to be a Saviour; But the Name Christ doth in particular make known, how he wrought Salvation for us; For it denotes him to be a Priest to have offered up himself a Sacrifice for us, and to make intercession for us, it denotes him a King to subdue and conquer the enemies of our Salvation, and to rule and reign in our hearts by his Spirit, It denotes him a Prophet, to teach and instruct us, and to make known Gods will unto us, whereby he doth apply his purchased Redemption unto us. In all reason therefore the Name Christ doth more fully and clearly express our Salvation than the Name jesus; and by this their reason is rather to be bowed to than the Name jesus, Secondly, if we must bow at the Name jesus, because it signifieth our Salvation, why then do not they bow at the word Saviour, (which they make all one with jesus,) which doth as plainly, yea more plainly denote our Salvation than the Name jesus, being better understood of all.   

Answer.  
I answer, we, Jesu-worshippers, I thank you for leaving out Superstitious, and now the Superstition is gone, I hope you will learn to worship jesus.  
We have the Name of Christ in as good esteem as you, yet we minding the command, commonly set jesus before it. And indeed, 
justifi. of bowing, p. 171: Tertul. adv. praxe. c. 28. Chrysost. in Joh. c. 1. hom. 2.  as Doctor Page said, I can hardly call this Attribute Christ, a Name: You may more truly call it a title of honour. Vestitus Nominis, it is the clothing of a Name, So Tertullian; an appellation, a dignity, Christus & Dominus non substantiae Nomina sed dignitatis, Christ and Lord are not substantial Names, but dignities: So Saint C●rysostome.  
What though Vrsinus term it cognomen, a Surname? be it so: So he and you will let, jesus, be praenomen, the Forename. I can give you both leave to make the exposition, whilst jesus is the Text.  
The Name, Christ, doth but show how he came into his Office by Unction, and if we look strictly to it, doth denote his humane Nature only. For God is not, cannot be anointed. But jesus signifies him that is God with us, the full Person, and our perfect salvation. Whilst we keep to it we are sure to miss nothing. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3.  
Infer what you can from the example of a potent Conqueror, there is nothing gained more by the relations of the several Battles, then hath been granted: unless you can make the circumstances of the Conquest more precious than the Conqueror.  
we'll take the sum of your application, and grant that the Name Christ doth relate his investing into a threefold dignity▪ of King, Priest, and Prophet. I ask now, who is this King, this Priest, this Prophet? Is not jesus he? Whatsoever is declared must be had there. The declaration of a thing is not more worthy than the thing. And this is the reason, why bowing at the Name of jesus, we bow not at the Name of Saviour: Because it is not the Name, but a metaphrase thereof.     

SECTION V.  


TO hold that we must bow by the Text at the Name jesus, because it signifieth our Salvation, will admit this dangerous consequence, for either it will overthrow the bowing in the Text by Angels, Devils, Reprobates, for they cannot bow at the Name Jesus in this sense as they say we must bow; for the Name jesus cannot signify to them, that he is their Saviour, seeing the Angels never sinned: To the Devils Christ was never promised; and if they must bow, and fulfil the Text, as certainly they shall, they must bow also upon the self same reason as we must, for the reason in the Text is the same for all: then they must bow also in this sense, that Jesus signifieth their Salvation also, which is an unspeakable absurdity. Yea it will overthrow Christ's conquest of sin, death, and the grave, whose destruction is their bowing to Christ in the Text, and it will make Christ their Saviour in stead of their destroyer.  

Page Iust. of bowing, pag. 48.  It satisfieth not to answer that the very Devils could call Christ by the Name jesus; for so they might call him, because it was his proper Name, by which he was commonly called, but if they bring their reason right, they must prove that Angels and Devils bow to Christ as he is their Saviour, (which they can never do) for so they say we must bow, and the reason of the Text is the same for all. It is plain than the Nam● jesus cannot be the Name in the Text in which every knee must bow, because it concerns elect men only, but that Name must concern all things and creatures alike, which is the Name of Power and Glory, as is above specified.   

Answer.  
If you take Salvation here, as I understood you before, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Luc. 2.30. Him which doth save; bowing at the Name of Jesus, because it signifies Him, can admit no dangerous consequence.  
Your instance of Angels, Devils, Reprobates, was before, Sect. 8. Part 1.  
All shall bow willingly, or against the will: Willingly the Good Angels; for though they never sinned, yet are they elected in him, 1 Tim. 5: 21. He is their Jesus, jure conservationis; for by his grace they adhering to God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, immovably, are sure from all danger of falling. In him preserved, they voluntarily fulfil the Text to him. See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. p. 53, 54, 55.  
But the Devils and damned bow against the will, as jesus is our Saviour, and their confounder. For the Text is, every knee should bow. The Vulgar and Arias Montanus say, flectatur, if it will not, it shall be made to bow. As Captives under the Conqueror, or the Condemned under the severe Judge, forced they are, and bow they must. Not our way; no such matter. For though the Text be for all, yet the sense of Salvation is not to all. If you will understand this Text of all in one way, you may by another Text, We shall all stand before the Judgement Seat of Christ, Rom. 14.10. conclude that we shall all fare alike.  
Would you this? Your fierce driving towards origen's error will hardly suffer me to suspend my censure. And hardly, because answers of the reverend and learned will not suffice you.  
Doctor Page, where you slight him, citys nine Authors, and saith, he could have named twice as many. But had he named none, the Text Mat. 8.29. (The devils cried out saying, What have we to do with thee, jesus thou Son of God) would suffice me. For if they can call him jesus, and acknowledge him to be a Saviour, though not to themselves, saith the Doctor, yet to others, why may they not, say I, in the same sense bow also?  
When you can prove that the reason in the Text is the same to all, they shall bow alike all. And here it is plain, you are as much out, as before; the duty concerns not elect men only: See my Antiteich. Tract. 6. All shall give an account of it, and as their account is, receive all. Insignis ipse & praeeminens, 
Prudent. Cathem. Hym. 11.  meritis rependet congrua.     

SECTION VI.  


THe bowing at the Name Jesus, because it signifieth a Saviour, and not at jehovah, is a preferring our Salvation above God's Glory: Now to do so is abominable, therefore it is a false opinion, and an unlawful practice.  
The Consequent is very plain; for the Glory of God is the end of all his works, Pro. 16.4. So it must be the main end of our works, 1 Cor. 10.33. Moses and Saint Paul preferred God's Glory above their own Salvation, Exod. 32.32. Rom. 9.2.3. He that loves not or serves not God for Gods own self, but for his own benefit, is but a false and mercenary worshipper of God, and shall surely miss what he seeks for. Now that this practice will make that we prefer our Salvation above God's Glory, it is evident, for jehovah is the express Name of God's Glory, Isa. 42.8. I am jehovah, (saith God) that is my Name, and my Glory I will not give to another. This Name is called God's glorious and fearful Name, which whosoever will not fear, God will make his plagues wonderful, Deut. 28.58. But the Name jesus is the Name that signifieth our Salvation, therefore it will plainly follow, if it be necessary to bow at any Name, if we will bow only at that Name, that signifieth our Salvation, and not at that Name that signifieth God's Glory, we love ourselves above God, and regard our own benefit more than his Glory.   

Answer.  
Your antecedent is false: for the Text saith, that the bowing at the Name of jesus is to the glory of God the Father. See my Antiteich. Tract. 9  
The endeavour to prove the consequence is lost, when that is granted which is desired. He that serves not God for Gods own self, shall miss the reward.  
Yet you and I may as well be Donatists, Anabaptists, if we be careless of the means thereto; and Simonians, Saturnians, if we should think that we serve God for nothing: as Marcionites, in deeming Gods works unworthy of him; or Cainies, in denying the God of Abraham the glory of his Creatures: God's glory is the utmost end. One of these, or these all they must be, that hold our practice of bowing doth prefer our Salvation above God's glory.  
I should have concluded contrary to you: but let us see your ground.  
jehovah, say you, is God's terrible Name, the express Name of God's glory, and God will not give his glory to another. Therefore we may not bow at the Name of jesus, who is our Saviour, is your direct argument.  
Is Jehovah and jesus, aliud & aliud, not one and the same God? Here you are an Arrian, or a Tritheite, choose you whether. And do you in earnest prefer the fear of God, that proceeds from the sight of his terrible Judgements, before the love of him, which is from his goodness? I hope you are not an American, that making two Gods, one good, and another bad, will not regard the good, because he dreads the bad. Who are Sons, love God for his goodness, and therefore will obey him; but Slaves they, which fear him only for his severity. To come close unto you, the Name of jesus is set forth unto us above any other Name, because all the excellencies of God are poured forth in it. See my Antiteich. Tract. 3. p 21.    

It avails not to answer, (as some do) that jehovah is comprehended in the Name jesus; and therefore in bowing to jesus, they also bow to Jehovah, and so glorify God. For it is absurd to say, that the Name jesus doth generally include the Name jehovah; for jehovah is of fare larger extent than the Name jesus. The Name jehovah is the Name of God's eternity, it signifieth God to have life within himself, to be an everlasting being, and was before the Name jesus: The Name jehovah, betokens God's incomprehensibleness, his Omnipotency, his Omniscience, his Wisdom, his Goodness, and all his Holy Attributes, and that essentially in himself: It betokens all God's works, his work of Predestination, not only of Election, but Reprobation, by which he will be also glorified, Pro. 16.4. It betokens not only his work of Redemption, but also his works of Creation and Providence, for which works sake, The heavens and earth do praise him, and speak his praise in all languages, Psal. 19.1.2.3 And for which works sake, we must also praise him, Psal. 100.2.3, Psal. 147. It signifieth not only his mercy, but also his justice, for which also we must rejoice, and praise the Lord, Psal. 58.11.12. True it is, God shows his Glory abundantly in becoming a Saviour to his people, yet the Name jehovah goes beyond the Name jesus in the extent of his Glory: It denotes God's Glory essentially in himself, and generally in respect of all his mighty works. The Name jesus denotes his Glory only particularly in respect of the work of Redemption, and only by way of relation to us, whom he hath redeemed. Therefore the reason aforesaid remains inviolable, that if we will bow only at that Name, that denotes God's Glory particularly only, and that doth only respect our own benefit in the work of Redemption wrought for us; and not at that Name that betokens his Glory essentially in himself, and that which hath relation to all his Attributes, and to all his mighty works; or if we will bow only at God's saving-Name, and not at all at any of his commanding-Names, I say, the reason stands firm, we love our selves above God, and regard our own benefit and salvation, more than his Glory or Sovereignty over us. As if a Subject will not bow to the King, but only in regard of some great extraordinary benefit bestowed upon him, it is evident, that he regards himself more than his Majesty.  

Answer.  
It is not from the purpose to say, that jesus contains jehovah. For if it do, as divers Interpreters hold, than the Name of jehovah cannot far the worse for our bowing at the Name of jesus.  
The extent of the Name jesus in the New Testament, gives full scope to that sense. For who there is jehovah, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lord, or Elohim, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God? Is not jesus? He is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and judgeth the whole Earth.  
I yield, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as is interpreted, Rev. 1.4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is, and which was, and which is to come. As if it consisted of three Tenses, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ens, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 suit, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 erit, thereby denoting the Eternity and incomprehensibleness of Essence, Power, Wisdom, Goodness, or what else, unto Election, Reprobation, Creation, Providence, Redemption, as you have expressed. All this I yield; yet this is not enough: we must find a Name in which all are in execution, and that is the Name of jesus. For all the works of God, either of Creation or Redemption, are to set out the glory of his Son, Col. 1.16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Of all the mighty Works, you shall find jesus the Author, joh. 1.3. And the Work of all Works is terminated in Him only, Mat. 1.21.  

Bernar. in Cant. Ser. 15.  His Name then is not of short content. Oleum effusum, Cant. 1.3. it is Oil that is poured forth, aliisque liquoribus supernatat, and as Oil it swims above all Liquors. The Power, Mercie, Justice, etc. of God run forth in this Name.  
This Name shall spread throughout the whole World, and at the great Assize of the quick and dead be cried up on both sides; by the Blessed, with acclamations of joy, Rev. 5. by the Damned, in gnashing of teeth, and gnawing the tongue, Rev. 16.10, 11.  
I confess it appeared an humble Name, but Humility and Glory must consist, or our hope is lost. He that is jesus is jehovah, or our Redemption is not wrought: for man only could never be victorious over Death.  
Had you not a little Socinianism within, you would never think our Saviour the less glorious by his undertake for us, nor God to have the less glory by us, for acknowledging our well-being in jesus.  
Your similitude may decipher you, it shall not us. We bow not as flatterers to their Princes, whose only aim is their own end: But knowing whose receivers we are, will not forget to be thankful, nor to be humble, when we sue unto him for any supply. Who do otherwise, detract from God; and how then is he magnified, by being called Jehovah by us?    


Secondly, The Angels, which by the Text must bow as well as we, upon the same reason of the Text, cannot have respect to the benefit of Salvation. They serve Christ for his Glory sake, and as he is their Lord.  
Thirdly, And lastly, Seeing Devils and Reprobates must fulfil the Text as well as we, and that also upon the same reason, by these men's grounds, they shall be more sincere in their service than we, for they must bow to him gratis, and as he is their Lord, but we must not bow, but upon a particular benefit, that Christ is become our Saviour.  
I do ingenuously confess, that this reason that Christ is our Saviour, is a very strong reason to move us to glorify God to the utmost, with our bodies and souls, being redeemed by so great a price, 2 Cor. 6.20. And seeing now that Christ for suffering death is crowned with glory and honour, Heb. 2.9. and is now glorified God and man with that glory which he had with his Father before the world began, joh. 17.3. It highly concerns us to glorify him now God and Man, with the glory and honour wherewith we now glorify the Father; yet it is no reason to prove, that we should honour the Son more than the Father, or the Title jesus, above other Titles of the Deity.   

Answer.  
Secondly, What benefit the Angels have by Christ, is before, Part 2. Sect. 5. They serve him, for preserving them in that estate they have, unto his glory.  
Thirdly, I must here tell, blame me if you will, that you are the greatest under-valuer of our Redeemer, that I ever knew, or thought to know of our profession. You will have Devils, all Rep●obates fulfil the Text, as, and as well as we, if we bow at the Name of Jesus as our Saviour. That is your inference, and can be no other; who will look back to your Enthymeme, and then go to your sixth rank of absurdities, in the fourth and fifth, may see.  
Nay, if we so bow, the Devil's service will be more sincere than ours: O Blasphemy against God and his Church! Unto what Times hath God reserved us? For the valuing of Salvation, we are ranked among, and brought beneath the Devils; Deus omen avertat, this portends no good, God for his mercy avert the judgement.  
But what's the reason of such base thoughts? This is it. The Devils, say you, must bow to him gratis, and as he is their Lord. Look unto their pride, and Hellish practices, on their deprivation of grace and glory in Hell's torments: Is it for nothing they suffer, and do they suffer nothing? As freely as they serve, I had rather not be, then be such a servant. You see why, and how they bow, for their evil, and in horror. There's nothing sincere, where is no will unto good.  
What's your Antithesis to this? A very desperate one, viz. But we must not bow, save upon a particular benefit, that Christ is become our Saviour. Here's your complaint, if both be joined. The Devils bow for nothing, but we must bow for our Salvation. My Eyes dropped in the Reading, and my Hand trembled at the Writing of your But.  
Is our Saviour and our Salvation at so low an ebb with you, that a knee may not bow, to show thankfulness unto him for such a benefit? Fl●ctere si nequeas superos, Acheronta movebis, if God will not leave his Commands, you will move Hell against him. Oh take heed; you know who was forced to cry out▪ Vicisti Galilaee.  
And you at last confess, ingenuously you say, pray God you do, that this reason, Christ is our Saviour, and that now he is Crowned with Glory and Honour, is a very strong reason to move us to glorify God unto the utmost.  
You do ingenuously: But do you it faithfully? If you do, why then say you, it is yet no reason that the Name jesus should be the highest Name of God? Damn your conceit of our honouring the Son more than the Father, and you will mend much. The Son is no more advanced by our giving him the Name, than the Father, whilst the Father so appointed it, and hath the glory of it, being so, Phil. 2.9.11. See Part 1. Sect. 9 and my Antiteich. Tract. 9  
Of our Salvation, God's glory is the end; and if this be his, he cannot have this, but in and through him who saved us. The Church ever held so, and I will never begin to decry her practice. Per benedictum jesum sit Deo laus, honour, virtus, gloria in secula seculorum. Amen.     

SECTION VII.  


MAster Page gives this reason, why the Name jesus hath the preferment above other Names to be bowed to, 
Answer to second Reply, p. 157.  viz. because above all other Names it signifieth Christ's dying and suffering. I cannot say jesus, saith he, but presently I am put in mind of dying.  
Answ. First, I deny that the Name jesus is a Name, that above all other Names puts us in mind of Christ's sufferings; For this Name in the plain signification of it, doth not directly signify dying. Many called God their Saviour in the old Testament, yet few did suppose that God should die. Many were called by the Name jesus, and many Saviour's God stirred up, and yet died not as Saviour's, Christ's Disciples knew him all along by the Name jesus, yet thought he had raved, when he once put them in mind of his death, Mat. 16.21. But indeed the Name Christ doth more fully put us in mind of Christ's sufferings, than the Name jesus, for jesus signifieth a Saviour, but Christ signifieth Anointed; it denotes him not only a Prophet and King, but also a Priest, whose office was to shed blood, therefore it directly signifieth dying. God if he had pleased, could have showed his mercy without his justice, but he would not. He could have been a jesus without becoming a Priest, but he could never have been a Priest, unless he had been a jesus.   

Answer.  
The Question Doctor Page hath there in hand, is, whether of these two Names, Jesus, or Christ, do lead us most of all to his Suffering and Sorrows? He affirms the Name Jesus doth, you deny it.  
1. Your first Reason is, that the Name of Jesus, in the plain signification of it, doth not directly signify dying.  
Doctor Page chokes your argument thus: He was called Jesus, because he shall save his people from their sins, Mat. 1.21. How is this done? Go to another Text, and that will tell you, that without shedding of blood there is no remission, Heb. 9.22. You see then, that near of Kin is Jesus, and shedding of blood; and therefore you may perceive, that this Name Jesus leads us directly to his bitter Death and Passion. I can no sooner say Jesus, but presently I think of dying. And that you may know how near jesus, and dying, saving and suffering are, the Psalmist will tell you, Psal. 68.20. He that is our God, is the God of salvation; and unto God the Lord pertain the issues from death.  

Aug. de civ. Dei. l. 17. c. 18. Aug. in Psal. 67.  And Saint Augustine doth say, that it doth there appear, that he, moriendo salvos esse facturus, must save us by Dying. Domini exitus non alius, quam mortis fuit, The Lords Exodus was not other then of death.  
'Tis not the bare saying, that many called God their Saviour, but few supposed that he should die, will make good your words.  
Can it be so promised, Gen. 3.15. so figured, Numb. 21.9. and so prophesied, Isa. 53. 1●. so often, and so fully, and not be supposed? Was there any other substantial Faith for the Patriarches, Prophets, and people of God in the Old Testament? Can they believe, that by Death, Death should be overcome, and not suppose Salvation would be by dying? What though other Saviour's died not as Saviour's? That argues they were Temporal Saviour's, and saved by his power who should die to save them.  
I may tell you, that the Heathen, in their sacrificing men, had an instinct hereof: For they believed, pro vita hominis nisi vita hominis reddatur, 
Caesar de bell. Gal. l. 6.  non posse Deorum immortalium Numen placari, that the Power of the immortal Gods could not be appeased, unless the life of man be given for man.  
Salvation by dying, was never so strange in the World as you dream, that it might be supposed only by very few. The Disciples indeed had, till the Resurrection carnal thoughts of Christ's Kingdom; but after they received the Holy-Ghost, they preached nothing more than jesus crucified.  
What you say of the Name Christ, is full against yourself. For Christ denoting a King, signifies one that is ready to Rule; denoting a Priest, one about to offer Sacrifice; and denoting a Prophet, one that can foretell things to come. All these are active and honourable Names, saith the Learned Doctor; in all these I can perceive no sign of Death.  
You say well, and that is all you can say; a Priest's Office was to shed blood, but not his Office to shed his own blood. 'Twas Christ's as jesus, not as Christ, to lay down his life for sinners.  
To your Sorites, that concludes nothing, I answer; God can do any thing which contradicts not his Will and Being. No question he could have saved us otherwise; but who justly condemned man by the sin of one, would have man by the obedience of one be delivered justly, Isa. 1.27. He could not therefore show his Mercy without Justice. And he could never have died, unless he had been Jesus.    


Secondly, The Consequent is to be denied, for if the Name jesus should above all other Names signify Christ's death, it will not follow, that therefore it is the principal Name to be bowed to. First, Because they have no ground of Scripture for it, Secondly, Because it contradicts the Text; for the Name above every Name is the Name that leads us to Christ's exaltation, and not to his suffering; For God exalted him, and then gave him that Name, yea he is become a perfect Saviour by his Glorification. What profit had it been to us, if he had not overcome death? therefore it is said, We see jesus crowned with glory and honour, etc. Heb. 2.9.  
Thirdly, If this reason be good, 
Quicquid convenit tali, quatenus tali, convenit omni tali.  than we must bow at the Name jesus written upon a wall, or in a Book, or when it is thought of; for so it will put us in mind of dying as well as when it is heard. Then also we must bow at the Name Christ, heard, seen, or thought of; because this Name doth better put us in mind of dying, than the Name jesus: yea we must bow also more especially when we read in a Chapter, or hear the sufferings of Christ preached to us; yea at every breaking of the bread in the Sacrament, or pouring out of the wine, we must bow, because Christ's death and sufferings are better so notified to us than by the Name jesus. So that there is no weight in this reason.   

Answer.  
Secondly, Your first Reason against the Consequence, is gone by your own Rule.  
1. The Exaltation is according to the Humiliation. If it were lowest, and there be a Name to be exalted, that will be exalted highest. For from the lowest to the highest is the highest advancement ever, saith the Reverend Bishop. And that God proceeds from Humility unto Glory, is plain in the Text. See my Antiteich. Tract. 1.2.10.  
2. The second is against the order of the Text. For the Apostle saith, Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, Phil. 2.6. He is our example; if we look unto him for Glory, we must first look on him as the example of Humility: For by Humility, and no other way else, go we into Glory. Mind we that Satisfaction he made on Earth, who will have comfort through him glorified in Heaven.  
3. In the third is ignorantia elenchi, you proceed not secundum idem ad idem, and so have changed the Question. The Question is not, whether we must bow at it, because it remembers us of dying; but whether it were not the most humble Name; and fittest to be exalted highest? We do not bow at it, because it puts us in mind of dying, but because it was the Name so humbled, and is now exalted above every Name. This is one Reason, but the Command is Chief; and therefore we do it only when, and as it is commanded.  
The rest, if, as the Question is stated, you will turn it at me, shall by your own Marginal Note recoil. Quicquid convenit tali quatenus tali, convenit omni tali; That which agrees with such a thing as such a thing, agrees with every such a thing.  
If then you ask, why we do not bow at the Name jesus written on a Wall, or at all times heard, etc. answer is, it's not, tale quatenus tale, such a mentioning, as such a one, which is prescribed and to be observed in the time of Confession, as in the first Part is declared. Sect. 5.  
Take heed M. Gyles, lest you appear to be one of those that Tully upbraids, 
M. T: C. de nature. Deo. l. 3.  Qui rationem bono consilio a Diis immortalibus datam, in fraudem, malitiamque convertunt. The four Syllogisms you sent me, being compared with this work of yours, are very forceable to persuade me into such a fear.     

SECTION VIII.  


SOme reason thus; The fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ bodily, Col. 2.9.  
Ergo we must bow at the Name jesus.  
Answ. I deny the Consequent, for if the fullness of the Godhead should so dwell in Christ, as that the rest of the Persons were stripped of the Godhead, which is blasphemy once to imagine, there might be some show for this reason; but the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells in every Person, in the First and Third as well as in the Second Person, joh. 14: 11. But only here is the difference, that the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Christ only bodily, because he only had a body ordained for him, that he might be a perfect Saviour, Heb. 10.5. And because he is now glorified in that body. So that there is no reason for that opinion from this place, but if there were a reason in this place, it makes as much for bowing at other Titles of Christ, as jesus, yea rather at the Name Christ, which is only named in the Text; for the whole fullness of the Godhead dwells no more in jesus than in Christ.   

Answer.  
You are at your some again; and by that time you come to some say again, I hope you will not find much more to say.  
You deny the Consequence, and your argument is, The fullness of the Godhead dwells in every Person: therefore it cannot follow, unless we bow at every Person, or strip the other Persons of the Godhead.  
I know every Person is God, and one and the same God. The Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, essentially. The Son then being honoured, the Father also is, Part 1. Sect. 9 and equally, because they are one; and fully, because he will not be honoured otherwise; and he will not, because in the eternal Decree he hath appointed his Worship to be exhibited through his Son. We honour no Person, if we honour, not all in jesus.  
Nor doth this make as much for bowing at the Name Christ as at jesus: For our Saviour hath the fullness of the Godhead, as jesus, not as Christ. Christ is the accidental Name, signifying his Anointing: jesus the substantial, noting the Person Anointed. That you had before.  
To your Objection of Christ specified in the Text, you mean, Col. 2.9. answer is: Thus distinguishing, I do not divide jesus and Christ, like the Corinthians; but only declare, that jesus is Anointed. Sive Iesus solummodo, intelligitur & Christus; 
Tertul. adv. prax. c. 28.  Wheresoever then we read jesus alone, Christ is employed; and where Christ, jesus is understood.    

But they press it farther, thus, Christ man brings us to the Father, and we could never have conceived rightly of the Deity, but by the humanity of Christ. I answer, Christ man only did not bring us to the Father; but Christ Mediator; God and Man; and though by Christ we are brought to the right conceiving and true knowledge of God, it is senseless to infer hence, if the consequent were good, that therefore we must bow solely at the Name jesus, except they can prove that jesus brought us to the Father, and not Christ.  

Answer.  
What you say they press, I believe you press further than ever they did. This I affirm, we could never have conceived rightly of the Deity, save by the Person of Christ, And though in our worship we can apprehend three subsistences, and one substance, yet without our Mediator this is nothing. Nor resting on our Mediator may we consider his humanity Seorsum, apart, but in the Person God, and Man, adore the Deity in a holy consideration of the Blessed Trinity. See my Antiteichisma, Tract. 9  
That way I own, by the humanity to climb up unto the glorious Trinity. And whatsoever you think, I hold this no ill reason why we should bow at the Name of jesus. Show me how the Father will accept my worship, and not in and at the Name of jesus, and I will bow at the Name of the Father, and not at the Name of jesus. And show me where bowing is expressly commanded at the Name of Christ, as we do you, that it is at the Name of jesus, and I will follow your direction.    

Some say, that jesus signifieth Christ's Person, but Christ his Office, therefore we must bow rather at the Name jesus than Christ. I answer, I have proved already, that jesus signifies the Office of our Saviour as well as Christ, though more summarily, and I affirm again, that the Name Christ doth every where denote Christ's Person, as well as the Name Jesus, and if this distinction abovesaid, could be proved true, that jesus signifieth our Saviour's Person, Christ his Office, yet it will be an ill Consequent to affirm, (if it were necessary to bow at Names) that we should bow only at that Name that signifieth Christ's Person, and not at that name that signifies his Office, seeing by his Office he brings us to God, and makes known unto us the Father. Therefore this reason is without ground, and without any light from Scripture. The only Consequent that the Scripture gives signification of upon this ground is this: Because Christ brings us to God, and reveals to us the knowledge of the Father, therefore we must pray to the Father in the Name of Christ, but it doth not say, that therefore we must bow at the Name jesus; and upon this their ground, it may be as well inferred, that we must pray to the Father, by mentioning of the Name jesus only, as bow to the Father, at the mentioning of this Name only.  

Answer.  
Here is another some say; viz. that jesus signifies Christ's Person, but Christ his Office; therefore rather at the one, than the other: I say so too.  
But you answer, that jesus signifies the Office of a Saviour, as well as Christ, as you have proved.  
Have you? I know not where: But if you have, you have by so doing, cast yourself. Remember you, that throughout your whole Book, jesus is a proper Name, and here you say it is a Name of Office: if then it be both, it is more excellent than that which is the Name of Office only.  
You reply that the Name Christ doth every where denote the Person.  
'Tis confessed before, that it doth imply the Person; but not that it is the proper personal Name. This is not proved by you, nor ever will be.  
That there is no Scripture for this practice, hath been urged, and answered often.  
You yet reply, that Christ brings us to God, therefore we must pray the Father in the Name of Christ, but Scripture doth not say, that therefore we must bow at the Name of jesus.  
There is Scripture for both, and whilst neither oppose other, set both stand.  
Nor doth it follow, that if we bow, at the mentioning of jesus, to the Father, we must pray to the Father, by mentioning the Name jesus only. For praying, you know, is one duty, and bowing another. Prayer is our substantial worship, and bowing an outward duty, signifying the hearty submission unto God. We mention Jesus carrying him before us by Faith, in our prayers to the Father, but do not think that the mentioning of jesus is prayer.      

CONCLUSION.  

I will shut up all with this Argument drawn from the Premises.  


EVery Exposition of a Text, which doth advance the Glory of God, and of Christ, and doth clear the Truth, without any ambiguity, and absurdity, is to be preferred before such an exposition, which derogateth from the Glory of God, and of Christ, and produceth many ambiguities, and dangerous absurdities. But this exposition of Phil. 2.9.10. To understand Name above every Name given to Christ, of the Power, Glory, and Dominion of Christ above all creatures, and things, created Powers, Dignities, and Dominions, Gods Name and Power only excepted, and to understand bowing of every knee in the Name of jesus, of the subjection of every creature, thing, dominion, and power, to the Glory, Power, and Dominion of the Lord jesus, advanceth the Glory of God, and of Christ, and clears the Truth, without any ambiguity and absurdity.  
But on the other side, To expound Name above every Name in the Text, of the advancement of the Name or Title jesus, either absolutely or relatively, above not only all created Names, but also above all Divine Names, and Titles; and secondly, to understand, bowing every knee, of things in heaven, things in earth, and things under the earth, in the Name of jesus, of bowing of express corporal knees, when the Name jesus is sounded out. These expositions do obscure the Text, do deface the Glory of God, and of Christ, and produce many dangerous Consequences and absurdities.  
Therefore the fotmer interpretation of the said Text, is to be preferred before the other, yea is true, when the other is false.   

Answer.  
I now perceive your three year's crop is unlading in your Barn. Infaelix lolium is the grain, he that eats with you, is like to have a giddy head. You have bound them up in one Cart, and intent to turn them off in violence to smother me at once.  
But look you to yourself, my defence is made. The two Minors are false; what inconsistences arise from the first, have been fully discovered before. The dangerous Consequences, which you pretend to follow the second, were as you produced them, repelled in order. And now the false acont●● which you have given, shall ● under the particulars of your charge, ap●ea●e.     

The dangerous Consequences, which the second opinion doth produce, are noted in the Premises to be these.  
Answer.  
IN the first and second part, until you came unto the foot, dolose latebas, you covered yourself with all the Sophistry you and your friends could make. Here in the close, aperte saevis, your rage is open. With what, before you vainly supposed, you now most impiously charge the Church. And so impudently, that had I answered all your reasons with no, I would have said to your absurdities nothing. For the very recitation of them is sufficient refutation.  
But there are a sort, that look only at the head and foot, or having seen the Front and Rear, care not though the body be of Puppets.  
To make them more wary, I have broken your forces hither, and will not desist, till these Viper's heads, that eat their way out of the mother's sides, be crushed under my feet.  

1. In respect of the whole Trinity.  


1. IT confoundeth the Persons of the Trinity. 
Part 1. Sect. 9 Part 1. Sect. 1.   
2. It will make all Names and Titles of the Trinity and Deity, as Lord, God, Christ, jehovah, Father, Holy Ghost, to bow knees to the Name Jesus.    

Answer.  


1. Bowing at the Name is the evident token that not separating any Person, we distinguish every one in the Sacred Trinity. Not dividing one into three, we discern three in one.  
2. It showeth that the Name of jesus is the fullest expression of God unto us, not that Names make knees where none are. Who have knees, and know the Name, should observe a time and how.      

2. In respect of God the Father.  



Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 20.  1. It makes him inferior to his Son, and to bow to his Son.  
2. It accuseth him of cruelty and injustice, in appointing such a worship to most of his Creatures, in whom he hath not created Power of performance.  

Part 1. Sect. 13.  3. It maketh him to regard things of less importance, and to neglect the weightier,    

Answer.  


1. 'Twas never, nor ever will there be an error, that shall set the Son above the Father. The Father, and the Son being one, the Father cannot be highly advanced, save by the high advancement of his Son.  
2. This duty reacheth no more than are capable thereof. Angels and men, good and bad, have the obediential faculty, that way to declare Gods exceeding Mercy, and his severe Justice.  
3. It doth not make God do any thing: but shows that he, who cares for the greater, leaves not the less to our wills. He will have the whole man, or no part of him.      

3. In respect of God the Son.  



Part 1. Sect. 12.  1. It attributes unto him a Name, which they say, is above every Name, yet without power and authority, making it only the proper Name jesus, which others had as well as he.  

Part 2. Sect. 5.  2. It overthroweth the duty of the Text, to Angels, Devils, and Reprobates, or else it will make Christ a Saviour to them, yea it will make Christ a Saviour to Hell, sin, death, and the Grave, which must bow as well as other things, as appears by the Premises.  

Part 1. Sect. 12.  3. It deprives Christ of the honour of the most of his creatures, which cannot possibly perform the Text, as they understand it, so that it makes Christ Lord but of a few of the creatures, who is Lord of all.  
4. For those that can perform it, 
Part 1. Sect. 12.  it gives to Christ the honour only of one part of the body, when he will be honoured with the whole body and soul, so that it makes him Lord but of the knee only.  
5. It gives him this honour but one day in the week ordinarily, 
Part 1. Sect. 12.  and that but now and then in that day, and but in one place ordinarily, when he will be served at all times and places. So that it makes Christ Lord but for the space of a few minutes in one day of the week, and that but in one place,  
6. It depriveth Christ of his true Subjects, 
Part 1. Sect. 12.  and forceth upon him the members of Antichrist.  
7. 
Part 1. Sect. 12.  It depriveth Christ of his honour and glory at the great Day of judgement, and makes his Kingdom in the height of it to be extremely ridiculous,  
8. It advanceth the Son above the Father. 
Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 9   
9 It giveth greater honour to the Son, than to the Father, and so maketh inequality between the Persons of the Trinity.  
10. It attributeth our salvation, either to the bare Name Jesus, 
Part 2. Sect. 3.  and so it is flat Idolatry, or else it divideth Christ from himself, making jesus and Christ two Persons, and from jehovah, making him not God, or above God, and so it is flat blasphemy.    

Answer.  


1. It attributes the Name unto Him, in which all Power, Wisdom, Goodness, etc. is manifested. No man ever had it so, as he, nor ever shall.  
2. It maintaineth the Duty of the Text, declaring, that the good acknowledge jesus their Saviour, and the bad their Confounder. Hell and the Grave, in their proper sense, come not at this service; figuratively they, that is, all that are there, do.  
3. It deprives Christ of no Honour. That Honour he therein requires, the reasonable pay, none else are bound thereto. And 〈◊〉 your Tenet be not absurd, we may lay by Preaching, because ●rees have no ears.  
4. It is a token of the whole man's obedience, within, and without. The outward, without the inward, is Hypocrisy.  
5. It gives him his Honour so as is prescribed to the glory of the Father. At no time the knee may bow to any other, which according to the circumstances must bow only unto him, when he may thereby be magnified.  
6. It demonstrates whose we are. None can deprive Christ of his, nor force other on him.  
7. It doth not detract from Christ's glory, but fully expresseth it at the Great Day. Not that it is the whole of his glory, but to his glory all, and setteth his Kingdom at the height.  
8. It advanceth not the Son above the Father, but the Father by the Son. In him only shall the glory of the Blessed Trinity be refulgent.  
9 It honoureth the Son as the Father, and maketh the Father and the Son equal. The honour of the Son is the Fathers, and no other his.  
10. It attributes our Salvation unto the Person of Jesus, declares that he is anointed thereto, and that he being Jehovah, is the express Character of his Father. This it doth, and he that said the contrary, spoke Blasphemy.      

4. In respect of God the Holy Ghost.  



Part 2. Sect. 3. Part 1. Sect. 11.  1. It makes him inferior to the Second Person.  
2, It brings his work into bondage at the will of man, yea sometimes of vile men.    

Answer.  


1. It argues not inequality, but infers the incomprehensible Order of the glorious Trinity: The Son in and of the Father, and the Holy Ghost in and from them both.  
2. It performs his Work as he hath instituted, Vile men subject it not to their will: they are reproved, or avoided, for blaspheming it, and the duty is done in that.      

5. Concerning the Church.  

Part 1. Sect. 11.  It gives her authority over God's Word.  

Answer.  
It gives her no Authority over God's Word; but showeth, that she followeth the Word of God. She doth nothing against, nothing beside the analogy thereof.    

6. Concerning ourselves.  


1. It brings us into bondage, 
Part 1. Sect. 11.  by making us to perform God's worship at every man's pleasure, and so it enthralls God's worship to every man's will.  
2. It makes the Church a perpetual prison, 
Part 1. Sect. 11.  and the bowing of the knee never to be ended.  
3. It makes us to respect our own benefit more than God's Glory. 
Part 2. Sect. 6. Part 1. Sect. 8:   
4. It makes us to serve Christ more corruptly than Devils and Rep●obates.  
5. 
Part 2. Sect. 6.  It will make the Saints at the day of judgement worse than Idolaters.   
These dangerous, and for the most part, blasphemous Consequences, besides many other senseless absurdities do necessarily arise from this opinion, therefore it is insufferable and not to be endured.   

Answer.  


1. It brings us not into bondage, but doth manifest, that we abuse not our Christian liberty. Being freed from the bondage of the Law, we are not free to do as we list. The Church, according to God's Word, must discipline us.  
2. It makes not the Church a Prison, unless it be a slavery to serve God. The bowing of the knee hath but its time, and being a subordinate duty, burdens not the worshippers of God.  
3. It declares, that our Salvation is to the great glory of God. We express our thankfulness by it, and ascribe the whole benefit unto his grace.  
4. It is a full argument, that we confess Jesus to be our gracious Redeemer. So to glorify God for such grace, can be no error, much less, more than Devilish corruption. But 'tis high impiety in you, to abase our bowing unto Jesus beneath the blasphemies of the damned.  
5. It expresseth in whom the Saints at the Day of Judgement triumph. But it proceeds from the Devil to say, that it is worse than Idolatry to extol his Name, who delivered us from the Devil.       

I have done; and for your hard-hard Censure of us, tell you, that if your Book come not to a violent end, God hath permitted, bonis male evenisse, evil to betide the good. I left with the first Part of your Book the beginning of an Ode, and I will with this, 
●orat. Car. l. 3. ●. 2.  the end of another.  
— Saepe Diespiter  
Neglectus incesto addidit integrum:  
Raro antecedentem scelestum  
Deseruit pede poena claude.    
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉   

ERRATA.  
PAge 2. line 23. read fine. p. 4. l. 33. r. Mascall. p. 7. l. 17. r. avow. l. 27. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 11. l. 24. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 16. l. 39 r. opposita. r. ibid. Economical. p. 18. l. 4. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 21. l. 31. r. justice. p. 27. l. 17. r. our. p. 31. l. 9 r. y●u. p. 34. l. 21. r. amated. l. 25. r. Parishioners. p. 38. l. 15. r. ●bscuras Scripturas. l. 18. r. Nay, all. p. 41. l. 34. r. take. p. 43. l. 15. r. insanit Egidius. p. 90. l. 36. r. called Jehovah. p 98. l. 7. r. divisa.