A DEFENCE OF A TREATISE AGAINST superstitious jesu-worship, Falsely called Scandalous, against the truly Scandalous Answer of the Parson of Westminston in Sussex. Wherein also the whole Structure of his ΑΝΤΙΤΕΙΧΙΣΜΑ, so far as it concerns the point in controversy is overthrown, the truth more fully cleared, and the iniquity of that Superstition more throughly detected.  
BY M. G. the Author of the former Treatise, published Anno Dom. 1642.  1 TIM. 6. 3. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions, and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings. 
Printed at London for Daniel Frere, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the sign of the red Bull in Little-britain, 1643.   

TO THE honourable THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS And Burgesses of the House of Commons, Assembled in Parliament.  
MOst Noble Senators, having had a necessary occasion to publish a Treatise against Superstitious jesu-worship, I dedicated the same to a worthy Member of your House. Now finding it encountered in two volumes by Master Barton, who after dedication of his first book to the King's majesty, seems next to dedicate the same to you, I have therefore taken boldness to dedicate this my Reply to you also, (being indeed an encounter with both his books) which otherwise I should not have done nor presumed to soar so high. This man is very confident in his cause, he tells you he hath hit the mark▪ at which he aimed, but I am confident it will appear for all his boasting, that he hath took his level with a false deceitful eye. He first flatters you and tells you, that your Honour advanceth truth, and nothing more, and presently after complains, that the ●lose followers of truth and peace are pursued, (He means himself, and his faction) and so the two sacred Sisters are forced by humorists. Upon whom this will reflect, I leave to your wisdoms to consider. He is not ignorant that you have broken the neck of this superstition, and favour not the followers of it. Against me he complains to the King's majesty that I have crucified Christ in his name, and have shamefully handled the Church: heavy charges if I cannot avoid them; For the first, I appeal to what I have written; for the second, I am not guilty, unless affirming it to be unlawful to give a Church authority over God's word, do make me to be so. For this opinion I know it to be one of the main props, and pillars of Antichrist, and it lives and dies with him, and blessed bee God both are hastening to their end, but if I should hold my peace at this time I should betray truth, which I abhor to do. There be many Malignant Spirits fit for a Malignant opinion that do yet plead for it. And some I know do greatly cry up this man's book; I have laboured to strip this superstition stark naked, that the ugly deformity of it may appear, and what I have done herein I humbly submit myself to your Honours grave censure, and humbly crave of you pardon for my boldness. The Lord watch over you for good, be a wall of fire round about you, and the glory in the midst of you, keep you safe under his wings from the desperate plots of wicked and unreasonable men, (as, his Name be eternally praised, hitherto he hath done) till Babylon be laid in the dust, and the King of glory appear on Mount Zion in perfect beauty; Thus prayeth  
The unworthiest of your Servants, MASCAL GYLES.   

TO THE READER.  
CHristian Reader, I received in January last this Answer to my Treatise, and I presently addressed myself to a Reply, which I finished (notwithstanding other business) in the space of a month, as some of Mr. barton's acquaintance can testify; and presently took care for the Printing, but being certified that his book was little regarded but kept Shop at London diligently, and seldom went abroad, I was the more careless of setting it forth. But perceiving that Mr. barton's admirers took advantage by my neglect, boasting that I was not able to make any answer; to the end that truth may not be foiled, and error wax proud, I have here presented it to thy view.  
It is the manner of Erroneous Teachers, what they cannot do by Reason, to endeavour by railing to trample truth under their feet. Thus doth this Answerer, than whom a more scoffing Ismaelite, or a more railing Rabshakeh, I deem never came in Print; If to call me Arian, Socinian, Triformian, Anabaptist, and I know not what besides, will carry the cause at his side, he will surely win the victory. This is one of his fetches to endeavour by barbarous slighting of my Person to discredit my book. Another of his policies is to encounter me with a great volume, and a great show of learning. It is possible he may thus prevail with ignorants, that understand him not, and with such as are carried with prejudice, but I am confident that he will never please any that are truly learned and pious; one pearl with them, though it go in a narrow room, will be more precious than a Cartload of straw or stubble. I question not his learning; learning indeed is exceeding commendable if holy men have the use of it, otherwise nothing more pestiferous. The most pestilent errors have been broa●●ed by the abuse of learning. he is a wise man indeed that useth knowledge aright, Prov. 14. 1. As for his opinion, which he maketh a 
* Answer to a Treatise, p 43.  necessary point of Faith and Salvation, and denounceth 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 59 and 65.  Anathema on those that will not practise it, as he can do no less upon his grounds; the only learning to prove it is to be had from the Scriptures which are not for him, but against him, and which he hath miserably perverted for his own ends, as I shall demonstrate. If ever man did set himself to oppose truth, which clearly shines in his face, he hath done it: never any in this point hath so far exceeded in absurdity as he hath done, in so much, that in 
* Part 1. Sect. 4. and 8.  two Sections he hath overthrown his whole two books, and utterly broken the neck of his cause, never any more to be defended, as I shall prove▪ In his Preface he discovers a great deal of malignity, for he justifieth the opinion of those that ground is upon the Text by his own Reasons, and yet make it a thing indifferent only warranted, but not commanded by the Text, but ye● commanded by the Canon, which they will lay down if the Canon he overthrown; my confutation of this monstrous error he hath not answered but by a bold impudent denial. I would fain know of him how a necessary point of Faith and Salvation, which will be damnation to them that will not practise it, as he saith, (and all must say so too that ground it upon the Text) can be indifferent, and ever to be laid down by the fall of a Canon: If Mr. Barton had been ingenuous, he would have equally contested with them as with me, being as great antagonists to him, as to me, but see how suddenly be contradicts himself; for though he plead for those that hold it principally by human constitution, yet presently after ●e makes it an error to make the Text inferior by the Canon: an irreconciliable contradiction. As touching the order of the House of Commons against this ceremony, Mr. Barton denies it to be so, for fear belike lest he should be seen to involve them in his anathema. As for his reverend and orthodox Divine, whom he here basely flatters, and yet 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 52. 59 &c.  damns him, and his opinion to hell in his book, because he stirs not, I will not publicly note, yet there is nothing that I have set down, but I can prove it from his own hand, and from sufficient able witnesses; and I am so far to have any cause of recanting what I have written of him, that he hath more cause of public rec●ntation for seducing the people into superstition, who if he had been ●esse superstitious would have been now more famous, and if he compare those, from whom he hath lost, with those that now cry him up, it will add nothing to his comfort. As for his parishioner, whom he would not admit to the conference, he is of my opinion in the point, and one whom he laid to my charge, that I had seduced, therefore if he had been so strong and I so weak, it had been for his purpose to have admitted him, for it might have been judged a means to have revoked him from my opinion, and inclined him to his. As for Mr. barton's opinion, which he maintains in his book, but waves in his preface, I did in the sincerity of my heart prefer before the other, for I could never perceive, (nor I think Mr. Barton himself, when he is serious) how any can maintain this opinion from the Text, upon his reasons, and yet ever judge it lawful to lay it down; therefore I did not intend to rub his back, I suppose if it lack rubbing, himself hath made a device to allay the itch of it. That I had good cause to publish my book, I have showed sufficiently. That I received a senseless railing answer to my four arguments from him, I have to show from his own hand; for he did but only take my propositions, contradicting my assumptions, and gave me not one word of reason, notwithstanding accusing me of blasphemy, contradictions, inconsequences, and more than Semi-Arrian Socinianism. If this be not unreasonable railing I refer myself to any to judge: As for his answer, near the one half is impertinent stuff, and mere barbarous scurrility, which I have passed by, and have resolved not to return reviling for reviling. But if my spirit be moved in behalf of those three worthies, whose innocent sufferings he scoffs at Page 2. I trust the Reader will not blame me. There be sundry things in my book which are most material, that he hath not so much as touched with one of his fingers; for my part I have laboured in this my Reply for brevity to the utmost of my power, yet I know not any thing fit to be answered that I have passed by. Those his conceited strong holds in his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. and some other things urged, though when first mentioned, they are not answered in every place, yet they are answered in other places more convenient as thou shalt find. Those tales which he lays to my charge that I should speak, are all false, where I answer nothing. If there be any, that are so wedded to the learned opinion of Master Barton, that they affect it and own it, and will not be persuaded to the contrary, for my part I leave them to all the comfort that this opinion will afford them; but withal, I wish them to put it in practice, for I know some that hug his book that do not observe his rule, these show themselves horrible dissemblers before God and Man: I must tell them, if they do not practise it, we be to them. Never any served an harder master than Master Barton, if he be not obeyed, his correction is no less than eternal damnation. Thus, Christian Reader I leave thee to the perusal of this Reply.  
Thine in the Lord Jesus, MASCALL GYLES.   

Christian Reader, the Title following in the ensuing Page was set down without my direction: My Title is this.  A Defense of a Treatise against Superstitious Jesu-Worship. PART. I.  

A Reply to a counterscarp, Written by Master Barton; concerning bowing at the Name of Jesus, Anno 1642.  
MAster Barton in the latter part of his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} reads a Lecture of humility, but in his Epistle Dedicatory, before his answer, he beginneth with a proud brag, wherein he shows how well he puts in practise his own doctrine. He saith he answered my Treatise in 10. days of August last: Now this is to let the world understand, that many of my books were in the Country on the 19 of July, 1642. and I can prove that he had one of them amongst the first, and it cannot be thought that he would be idle altogether till the busy time of August; but I wonder that he would take so much time about it, seeing he boasted after he had sent me that scurrilous answer to my four Arguments in April before, that he had overthrown my whole Treatise in half an hour: a strange dull fit came upon him, as it seems to take but half an hour then, but now ten days. Now to show the impudence of this brag, I will declare the truth of all: Almost two years agone he being at my house, I read into him my whole opening of the Text. In the Spring, 1642. meeting him by occasion in the presence of a Gentleman, and others, he seemed to be very fair with me, and meekly requested me to send him some of my Arguments, affirming that if he saw weight in them that he would yield, promising that when he had perused them he would return them again; and send me the grounds of his opinion. I therefore sent him those four arguments above specified, at large with their proofs, which he hitherto keepeth by him, and would not return them, neither would he send his grounds according to promise: Is this equity? nay is it honesty? but it is such honesty as well becometh Master Barton.  
Besides, almost two years ago I sent him another Argument. First and last in conference, and otherwise, I know not one Argument but he hath been acquainted with: and he knew as long ago as September 1641. that I would set out my book; and yet this man hath the face to say that he answered my whole book in ten days. To add to this, in one passage of his book he lays to my charge that my book is a monster of three years' hatching; 
Page 50.  great odds, his brood but ten days in hatching, mine three years; But this is the truth, finding this gross superstition to take so much in the county by those superstitious teachers, and some ignorants in my own parish to be staggered with it, I something more than three years ago delivered as much against it as amounted to the quantity of an hour and a half at two several Sermons, and then left it, only being ready to encounter with any of that opinion, as occasion should serve, and never thought to come in print, till I had received abuses by these men, and so with as much convenient speed as other businesses would give me leave, I wrote it out fair, making it ready for the press; and so I sent it up to a friend at London, where it lay almost half a year before it came into the press, till such time as I was careful to look after it myself. If my book had been made ten years agone, what then? I may put it out when I please, it is rashness and madness to affirm that because my book came out three years after I first studied the point, that therefore I was so long in studying it; by this rule Master Partons {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is a monster as well as my book▪ for I can prove that three years agone, and better, he began to preach for his opinion, and a special friend of his told me before my book was in the press, that he had a book of this Question ready for the press, which without doubt was this his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. This I thought good to make known, lest the reader should be deceived in a passage of his in the Title of the said book, where he saith it was prepared 1642. for if by preparing he mean inventing or studying, he wrongs his reader and his own conscience, seeing he preached for his opinion three years before. Thus much in answer to his proud brag. This Sophister (for so I cannot choose but call him; for all his answers are but mere sophistry) is offended at the title of my book, because I call bowing at the name Jesus superstition. One reason is, because, saith he, Jesus is the Genitive case, and cannot be nominal in any case; which exception shall be answered hereafter. And secondly, because the term of superstition is an enthusiasm (as he calleth it) of Master Prynne and Master Burton, whom in scorn he calls Confessor Prynne and Father Burton, fathered on him and his fellows by me, whom he calls their pupil. But it was called superstition by sundry learned, long before they or myself wrote in the Question: therefore it doth not appear to be first brought up by those worthy men, or if it were, I have no reason to recant for saying so too, unless he can disprove the truth of it: and whereas he upbraids them with their forfeitures, and asketh me whether I will undergo the same; I answer, he is a malicious impudent person to cast the sufferings of those excellent men, with scorn into their teeth, in comparison of whom for true solid learning, piety and sincerity, he is not worthy of that honour that Job refused to give to the fathers of those children that mocked him; 
Job 6. 30. 1. 2.  but himself also hath undergone a forfeiture, which if it had been in as good a quarrel as theirs, it would have been more for his comfort, but he speaks out, he can be content to help me to their forfeiture, if it lay in his power, because he saith, that contrary to my knowledge (his own saying, he should have said) I accuse him of syllabical worship, having often (but it was never but once as I remember) in the presence of Divines and Gentlemen affirmed the contrary: In answer to which, I doubt not but this malcontent will do what he can to the uttermost of his power, to the extremity of forfeiture, his malice is so implacable not only against me, but against all such as hate his courses; but he cannot tell what forfeiture he himself may undergo for his misdemeanours if once a good peace be settled, and I am confident that they that are throughly acquainted with Master Barton, will not accuse me for the crime of incredulity in not believing him on his bare word; but whether I have wrongfully charged him with syllabical worship, the following treatise will declare.  

SECTION I.  
Wherein I demonstrate, 
Name above every Name what it is not.  first, what Name above every Name cannot be; and secondly what it is: and first I say it is not to be understood of a bare proper name which makes Mr. Barton very snuff, 
Whose disease I pray tended to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that was among the Cavaliers, in habit and posture of war as a Cavalier?  and tells me that my disease is Melancholia, & tends to {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and lays to my charge ignorantia Elenchi, in saying that they do not divest the name above every name to bare letters, and syllables, and that they do not take the name without the sense: but what if himself do utterly mistake the question? for by a bare name I intend not any name simply debarred of sense, but first a proper name considered Seorsim and apart by itself. And secondly such a name that is not answerable in a true relative sense to names subjected to it. My first reason, Sir, you needed not to have been offended with, for I except it as you see from a reason infallible, but take it as probable, and as an introduction to those reasons that are more sure. My second and third Reasons taken from the analogy of the Scriptures you take to be nothing, and include them in the former, but you are mistaken, and where can you find these phrases, A great Name, or Name above another, taken from a proper namein this sense in any part of Scripture? My fourth reason you frivolously slight, you deny that if the Name above every Name be a proper Name, the subjected Names must be proper Names also; this is to deny evident plain reason, for is there not a manifest relation between a proper Name, and proper Names? But you say, if I mean a Name in the sense of it, the Name Jesus is above every Name whatsoever, yea above the Name of God, which is a fearful assertion, for if you mean the Name of God considered by itself as a name, then because it is plain by the Text that every Name below this highest Name must bow knees to that Name, than it will follow, that besides the Names of the Creatures the Name of God must bow to the Name Jesus: this will be laid to your charge, avoid it if you can. But if you will not have the Name Jesus referred to names, than it must be referred to the powers of things subjected, than it will follow, that excepting not God, God himself must bow to the Name Jesus: impute not blasphemy to me, it is direct blasphemy in you by your own doctrine, and because you see it lies upon you, you rage and rail. Now then seeing Name above every Name cannot be understood of a bare proper Name in the sense above spoken, therefore it follows that it cannot be understood of the Name Jesus, because the name in the Text is a name of power and authority, as that parallel place proves it, Matth. 28. 18. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, all power is given me. So Master Calvin on that place, Quo etiam pertinet illud Pauli, to which pertains that of Paul, he emptied himself, wherefore God exalted him, and gave him a name, which is above every name. Again, the scope of the name proves it, for Subjection must be given in this name signified by bowing the knee, Authority & subjection are relatives, there is no Subjection due where there is no Power or Authority. Now the Name Jesus is a name of Salvation, and not a name properly denoting Command and Authority.  
Secondly, though it should be granted that the Name Jesus is a name of Authority, yet it is not a name of the highest Authority, Doctor Page your own witness shall be Judge, whom you judge unreprovable in his judgement, 
Pag. 197.  who in his answer to Master Prynne's Reply to widows; Master Prynne having brought many places to prove that the name Christ denominates Christ's Sacraments, his Church, his Apostles, his Ministers, his Saints, his kingdom; and therefore a Name especially venerable amongst Christians, doth acknowledge that the name Christ may be of greater authority and dignity than the Name Jesus, though not of greater savour and mercy. Now let Doctor Page with all his learning, and Master Barton with all his sophistry reconcile this if they can, how the Name Jesus can be above every name, yet it be possible that any other name may be of greater dignity and authority than it, seeing Name in the Text doth expressly denote dignity and authority.  
Thirdly, thought it should be granted that the Name Jesus is of highest authority in regard of the Church only, yet in this respect neither can it be the name above every name in the Text, for this name is of highest authority in regard of the whole creation, heaven and earth, and therefore without controversy in respect of Angels, Devils, and all men whatsoever, according to the forecited place, Matth. 28. 18. All power is given me in heaven and earth. Christ in this name commands the whole heaven and earth. Now the Name Jesus cannot command the Angels, because to them he is not Jesus by redemption, as the name signifies; much less can it command the devils; and it cannot command the whole earth, for many nations have no knowledge of his written Law, much less the gospel; therefore neither doth he command them as Jesus, neither can any of these submit and bow to him as Jesus. Therefore here the Name Jesus standeth as a bare name to Angels, devils, reprobates, and many nations of the earth. And let not Master Barton be angry if I affirm that he and his fellows adore the bare Name Jesus. For first understanding the Text of the Name Jesus they appoint the bowing to the Name only, 
Sect. 5.  and not to the person, as I have proved, and they cannot intend it to the person except they add to the Text. Secondly, when the person of our Saviour is as fully denominated under his other titles, as Jesus, they move not, but only at the name Jesus. Thirdly, when they stand or sit to hear the Word, a gesture allowable by the Word, as soon as the Name Jesus is mentioned they immediately bow, and when oftentimes the great mercy of God in saving us is largely and copiously laid open in a Sermon, or when in reading of a Chapter many excellent sentences are related, wherein the sense of our salvation is more clearly notified to our understanding then by the Name Jesus, yet there is no stir, no adoration, but only at the Name Jesus, no not at the title Saviour, which is the very sense of the name Jesus, and better understood of all. Fourthly, it is ordinary with these men, when they be upon their knees at the prayers to God and Christ, then to make a special incurvation of the body at the sound of Jesus, a plain argument that these men are guilty of syllabical worship, and worship the bare name more than God or Christ himself. That I alone do not so charge them, Master 
* On Phil 2. 9  Calvin and Master 
* Exposition of the creed.  Babington do both of them lay syllable worship to their charge. Therefore I return Master barton's scoffs upon himself, and I would fain see, how not poor silly flies, but such mighty Elephants, as this Saphister is, can escape out of these nets: and therefore his cramb so often Cocta cast upon me is more than ridiculous, viz. Name above every name as a bare name cannot be understood of the Name Jesus, as a bare name, and this shall serve to answer it everywhere when it is brought. To the second part, viz. If it should be understood of a proper name, yet may it not be understood of the Name Jesus; my first reason is, because the word Jesus doth nowhere denote the name Jesus, but only Matth. 1. 21. and Luke 2. 21. where it must needs so signify; but he will have my meaning to be this, that the word Jesus doth not signify the word Jesus, which is a Crotchet of his own devising: I say the word Jesus doth not signify the name, not the word, your instance of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to signify Jehovah in the old Testament is nothing to the purpose; for I speak here of Jesus; neither is the Parallel brought right, for you should have produced where the word Jehovah is taken for the Name Jehovah, and if you did, it is besides the Question, which is only there concerning the Name Jesus. But you can prove, you say, that name is often used for Jesus, and instance in one place, which if true, it is not for your turn, for you must prove that Jesus is taken for the Name Jesus, but that place of Acts 5. 41. is not for you; doth the Apostle speak there barely of the name or appellation Jesus? you thought belike you should never be answered; these be the words, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer rebuke for his name: what is name taken for the name Jesus here properly? did the Appellation Jesus offend the Apostles enemies? did not they call him Jesus as well as the Apostles. This is that offended them, for preaching that Jesus: not the name but person was the Christ; no quarrel at all about the name Jesus: Would it be thought that one that professeth himself such a scholar as Master Barton is should run into such an absurdity? To my second reason, viz. that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is never taken for the name Jesus, you object that I take the word without the sense; but Sir you must not take the sense without the name: the question is about the name Jesus as a name, and though you take the sense with it, yet you cannot bring any Scripture for this interpretation: but because you cannot answer this reason, therefore you put it off with a scoff. In the next place you affirm that in this phrase {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is the genitive case, and not the dative, and so you will have it read not in or at the name Jesus; but name of Jesus: therefore it pleaseth you Sect. 5. Page 36. in your learned scurrilous language to call me a juggler, a thief, a beguiler of the people, and that I have put the theft impudently on the Church, for turning the Genitive case into the case of the nun; but what Sir, if I prove you to be the juggler, and the thief? for if you will have it read in or at the name of Jesus, than I agree with you; you know I am content to understand it so too; but here now will be a great doubt, what is meant by the Name of Jesus. If by the word Jesus you do understand the person, Name is general, and many senses may be made, than my sense of the Name of power and glory will come in fairly, than any other name of Christ may come in to be the name as well as Jesus, as Christ, Emmanuel, mediator, which are all names of Jesus, as well as Jesus▪ yea in better congruity of speech, these may be called name of Jesus, than the name Jesus, But if by the word Jesus you mean the name Jesus, and yet will not have it be in apposition with {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, than the sense will be thus, at the name of the name Jesus, which will be very senseless; therefore by these words, in the name of Jesus you must read name Jesus, or else nobody understands you: yea your own friends read it so, as 
* learn to live, Chap. 14. Pag. 217.  Sutton; yea you quote 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. pag. 36.  Origen to call it so, yea 
* {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. pag. 22.  you yourself do call it so: let the world judge now, who is the deceiver or juggler, you or I.  
To my third reason that Jesus was a communicable name, therefore not the name above every name, your answer is extremely scurrilous. First you say, I am near to atheism for questioning such learned men as Bishop Andrew's and Doctor Page, but how you can make it good unless you put them in the place of God I know not. I hope Sir, truth is not confined to a Bishops Rotchet nor a doctor's chair, but you by your own reason are as near atheism as myself for questioning Bellarmine with whom you cannot compare for learning. 
An●●…. p. 3.  This I say, that whereas your two friends affirm that sundry men were called Christ's, therefore Christ is a communicable name, I answered: These were no more called Christ's then others were called Saviours, Nehe. 9 27. And though you reply, that none of these were called Saviours as Jesus was a Saviour; so I say that none of these were called Christ's as Jesus was Christ. So here I have taken off your two friends, and yourself, and in this we areeven. But here I have the better of you. Some were called Jesus either by special providence, or general allowance, as by an ordinary Name to be called by, but none might be called Christ in an ordinary Name to be called by, without horrible blasphemy. And whereas you deny this, and seem to affirm that some are called Christ's without offence, by an ordinary Name to be called by, as you instance in Christopher and Christian, it is ridiculous; what, is Christopher Christ? it is no more Christ, than Mary the mother of our Lord is the Lord himself: and if you think you are called Christ when called Christian, I tell you plainly you are a very Antichrist. My quotation of Vrsin is ad idem, for I cite him only to this end, to show that Joshuah had his name given him by a special providence; and if Moses gave him the name, is doth the more confirm it.  
To my fourth reason, viz. because the Name Jesus was given to Christ in the beginning of his humiliation; therefore it cannot be the Name above every Name in the Text, which was given him at his exaltation; you answer nothing, but refer me to your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Pag. 13, 14, 15. and what do I find there? that two or three do say that Christ's Name was manifested after the resurrection, but not any to apply it to the Name Jesus. This Name needeth no manifestation, because he was all along so called; as God indeed his Name was manifested, but as man the Name was then given him; Name here is the highest glorification of the human nature as generally the best expositors do understand the Text.  
But if you can produce any place to prove that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} doth signify to manifest or declare, I will the sooner incline to your opinion; and according to your own reason, a literal-sense, admitting no absurdity, and expressing a clear truth, is to be preferred before a mystical. Now you scoffing at our figurative interpretation of some clauses, though warranted by Scripture, do make a mystical sense here nowhere warranted. Now that give is to be taken here properly, the analogy of the Text, and the order of the words will evidence; for the Name given here is God's free rewarding of Christ after his obedience & sufferings as is plain by the Text; which if it were only by the manifestation of his former Name, it is not so proper, as by giving him that glory which he had not before; Secondly, the words are {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, there being no article before {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} it is plain it hath no relation to any proper Name then called by. Again it being {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, he gave a name to him, not his Name, it is evident it is a gift not before had. I do not deny it to be understood of some Name or Names that Christ as God had before, as God Jehovah, son of God, for so they may after a sort be called a gift, for these names being laid down in his humiliation, restoring is a kind of giving; much more as the glory of these Names are given to the human nature. For whereas he was before called by these glorious names, as God only, now he is so called as God, and Man. And therefore though Zanchius do understand it of the name of God manifested, 
On Phil. 2. 9 10.  yet he affirms it to be a real gift, viz. as the human nature is honoured thereby; but in no sense can it be understood of the declaration of the Name Jesus, which Name was never denied him: therefore saith Zanchius, alii pro nomine Jesu, sed minus comm●de; others understand it, saith he, for the name Jesus, but less fitly, because before the resurrection he was called Jesus by all. To have the name Jesus declared after the resurrection is not properly an advancement of Christ 
* yourself say, that the declaration of a thing is not more worthy than the thing, Part. 2. Sect. 4. . Therefore is it not the name above every Name. If you Mr. Barton, should present one of your books to your Godfather, and he to gratify you, should give to you your Name Thomas, or declare your name Thomas, which he gave you before, I think you would not think yourself to receive much honour by such a gift or declaration. Certainly if the Name above every Name be but the declaration of the name Jesus, he should have more given him at his Circumcision then at his exaltation; for a gift is more than the declaration of it. If any thing were now added to the name Jesus, then was not his name perfect at the first; and you may as well say that Christ had not a perfect office, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} pag. 15.  or that he did not offer up a perfect sacrifice, as that the Name Jesus was not perfect. You say yourself, as the Names of things are, so should their virtues be esteemed: I pray, Sir, wherein doth the eminency of the Name Jesus appear after the resurrection? in all your treatise I do not see but you make it to consist in this, that it signifieth a Saviour, but so it signified before, and so it signified after he had wrought salvation for us by his death; to what purpose then was the sense of the name given him, when the nature of the name, especially after the work was finished, declares it of itself? if than the advancement of Christ's Name after the resurrection be no more than the declaring of the Name Jesus, God should but mock his son, and indeed give him no more honour, or not so much as he gave him before.  
To my fifth reason, that Jesus cannot be the Name above every Name, because Jesus was advanced after his resurrection to be Lord and Christ, Act. 2. 36. you have nothing to say to it, but accuse me of Arianism, as if say you Jesus was not the same before, that he was declared to be after the resurrection, Lord, and Christ. I answer, though Jesus were so before, yet he was not honoured so before in respect of the human nature, for so he was advanced to that honour. If Jesus were the highest Name; how could Jesus come to be more highly advanced in becoming Lord and Christ? 
Part 2. Sect. 4.  And here I must put you in mind of an horrible absurdity of your opinion; you affirm that the name Christ is the Name only of the humanity, the Name Jesus the essential Name of God; then by this your doctrine, according to this Text, Christ God in the time of his humiliation should be exalted in being made man, when he was advanced after his resurrection. That which I noted as considerable, is still as considerable as it was: he was most commonly called Jesus in the time of his humiliation, but after his Resurrection, and Ascension, he was most commonly called Christ; and when called Jesus, more commonly with the addition of Lord, and Christ, than Jesus only. I have run over the whole new Testament, and I find to the utmost of my search, Jesus alone named before the ascension 490. times.  

Christ alone but 40. times.  
Lord Jesus but once.  
Jesus Christ, six times.  
Lord Jesus Christ not at all.   

After the Ascension.  
Christ alone is used 238. times.  
Jesus alone but 45. times.  
Lord Jesus. 32. times.  
Jesus Christ or Christ Jesus 125. times.  
Lord Jesus Christ 95. times.   
Well then hence I argue that it is impossible that the Name Jesus should be the proper Name of the deity, and Christ of he humanity; for than should he be most commonly called God in the time of his humiliation, when his godhead was veiled, when Christ called himself the son of man, and most commonly called Man in the time of his exaltation, after that he had mightily declared himself to be the son of God; which were utterly senseless to imagine.  
But before I leave this, I will note a contradiction in Doctor Page, your infallible witness, who in his answer to Mr. Prynne's Appendix*, 
Page 55.  makes Jesus to be the name of the deity, Christ of the humanity; 
Page 197.  yet in his answer to his Reply*, he affirms, as I noted before, that Christ is a name of greater dignity and authority than Jesus: hence it will follow that our Saviour is of greater dignity and authority as man then as God; let this be reconciled if it can.  
Your answer to my fixed reason is nothing but senseless scurrility. Whereas I say, God in advancing his son above all excepted himself, and nowhere is Christ's Name said to be advanced above divine Names, but created only; I overthrow here no gracious dispensation that you can prove from the word, for though the high advancement of the son be to the glory of every Person, yet hath he not a Name or glory above them. And if you can prove it otherwise by Scripture, why do you speak of Scripture, and allege none?  
Seeing Name above every Name cannot be understood of the name Jesus, 
Name above every Name, what it is.  I understand it of the supereminent glory of Christ, upon these reasons. To let alone your scoff at my transition, for you can do nothing else, take the sense and the Name together if you will, I deny it not. First I say it is no way contrary to the analogy of faith, so to understand it, for Name is commonly taken for glory in Scripture. To this, your exception is nothing; for from hence I gather that this exposition is agreeable to the Scripture.  
Secondly, Name of God doth usually in Scripture denote the power and glory of God either implicitly of expressly: hence also I gather that my exposition is acoording to the Scripture; But you will have this make as much for you as me, but you cannot, For whether {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Lord, or no, is nothing to the purpose, our question is about a Name, not Person. This I can tell you, Sir, you cannot find Name prefixed before any of the titles of God; as Name of God, or Lord, or Jesus, &c. to denote the name God or Lord; therefore are the Scriptures against your exposition, though plain for me.  
To my third reason, you have more cause to blush for your frivolous exception, than I for affirming that it is more agreeable to Scripture to understand name for the supereminent power and glory of Christ, then otherwise; for you see I answer on by degrees in my reasons. My first and second, as a great Name, and Name above another; are two distinct phrases, and do everywhere signify not a proper Name, but only glory: but you will have this to be against me, for, say you, if a great Name do signify the great glory of the person, than it is not the glory, for signum is not signatum. I reply sign, and the thing signified are the same materially, and though when they stand in opposition they differ; yet otherwise the sign doth often denote the thing signified; and they are the same.  
To my fourth reason, that it must be understood of Power and Glory here, and not of the Name Jesus; for so it fits the words of the Text agreeable to other Scriptures, for name being here the gift which God gave him, other correspondent Scriptures do show that power and glory was that gift, as Matth. 28. 18. 1 Pet. 1. 21. You answer here nothing at all to those Scriptures; but only cavil against my reason. If, say you, the gift be power and glory, the Apostle should idem per idem agere. No Sir, I have proved Sect. 12. that these words, God gave him a name, are but an amplification of Christ's advancement, and the Apostle doth no more idem per idem agere, then he doth Ephes. 12. 1. 1 Pet. 1. 21. where it is said God raised Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, where the first clause expresseth one main degree of his exaltation, the second is an amplification of it. Next you think to encounter me with a Dilemma. If Name be power and glory, then say you, it must be created or increated. Created it cannot be say you, and be the name above every name; if increate, than you say it is Arianism to affirm that it was then given him; your Dilemma is nothing. It is first created power and glory, and so it is above all created glories, though not increated. Secondly, it is created, though not given to the essence of God, but to the human nature to enjoy, and so also it is only above all created glories. Your argument in the conclusion, is but a mere begging of the question without proof, and there is an equivocation in the minor, you must tell me what name you mean by the Name of Jesus, seeing you will not have it read the Name Jesus.  
To my fifth reason, taken from the scope and coherence of the Text, viz. that the conjunction {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} declares a correspendence of Christ's exaltation according to the distinct branches of his humiliation, which answers directly to Christ's glory and dignity, which he departed from, but nothing at all to the name Jesus; there being nothing spoken in the Text of a bare title, but of the person of our Saviour. First you question me for observing {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}; 
On Phil. 2. 9  but so doth your own Author Zanchy as well as I: it is but a frivolous catch. This {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} doth demonstrate say you, what I care not to see, that he whose person was so aviled, and his name, you mean the Name Jesus, put out by an accursed death, was superexalted in both. Sir, I care to see any thing that is in the Text, but not the fantasies of your brain. Next you challenge me for saying that Christ departed from his glory: but what do I say more than the Apostle, He emptied himself; or more than Zanchy, 
De natura Dei ●. 1. c. 17.  Nomen Dei deposuit, cum deposuit gloriam, laying down being a kind of leaving wherein I do not mean as this malcontent seems to challenge me, as if Christ ever ceased to be God, but only that he was not so honoured by the world in regard of the veil of his humanity: And this shall serve to answer this exception, where ever it is mentioned: next when you cannot fa●ten any reason for your opinion upon the Text, nor answer my reason drawn thence, you go about to fumble up a reason by asking a question, by which you say you will condemn me out of my own mouth, which is this; A person is humbled; and who is that person? I must answer the son of God: and what is his Name? I must answer say you, Phil. 2. 9 10. his name is Jesus: (but soft Sir, there is nothing spoken there of a bare name, but person) than Jesus say you was the name so humbled, and consequently the name so advanced. Is not this fine learned stuff? If the Name Jesus suffered as the person suffered, than it will follow that the name Jesus died, rose again, and now sits at the right hand of God; and then where will you have it to bow to? if it must needs be that the Name fares as the person fares, because it is so and so with the person, therefore it must be so, and so with the name. Then I wonder that Thomas Barton being afraid that himself should be punished for his demerits, that he was not afraid left his Name Thomas should be punished, and why then did he bring his Name Thomas to open light when himself was afraid to appear? It is no marvel that those that set themselves to resist the truth should run into such ridiculous nonsense. This argument of yours drawn from the suffering of the Name Jesus is the best you have; yet is it a senseless one, not so much as intimated in the Text, or any other Scripture, nor agreeable to reason. Let the reader judge, whether your comparison in the beginning of the Sieve holding the course, and letting go the fine, which you impute to my Section, do not befall your answer to it. But as you have answered this Section, so have you done all the rest.   

SECT. II.  
Whereas I do not so well approve of the opinion of those Expositors that refer the subjected Names to rational creatures only, but rather refer them to all things and creatures whatsoever; showing proof for my opinion, yet referring myself to better information if I can have it; you take advantage at this, and tax me that I oppose them with all my might by whom I pretend to be guided: but I hope Sir I may show reason for my opinion, and make it as strong as I can; and I must tell you, my opinion is as it was: you have answered nothing to purpose to any of the Scriptures I alleged. The main proof of my reason, that Christ's kingdom in this Text is not only of Mediatorship, but natural, you deny, and understand it only of the kingdom of Mediatorship: 
Phil. 2. 9 10.  but your own Author Zanchy understandeth it of both: yea you yourself understand it of both: 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. pag. 88  And some Texts by me alleged here, parallel to that of Phil. 2. you apply to both; why not then this Text? Next▪ because I say that Christ according to his human nature is advanced to the glory of the natural kingdom, and that he is exalted to be partaker of the glory of the divine nature in the inheriting of all things; you maliciously lay eutychism to my charge, as if I meant that the human nature is absorbed by the divine nature, 
If you had dealt fairly you should have set down my words as they were corrected and not as they were misprinted.  uncharitably construing this Phrase [according to the human nature] contrary to my meaning. As if I meant it as a cause. Christ according to his human nature is only this, Christ man, or Christ in the humanity; and so V●sin, 
* Catech. p. 308. l. 31.  understandeth the very same phrase, and to the very same purpose, as I do here: neither do I say that Christ man is partaker of the divine Essence, but only of the glory of it, in the inheriting of all things; neither do I confound the two kingdoms, as you lay to my charge, but only distinguish them: therefore you show yourself a most malicious person in charging me thus falsely as you do; which to compass, you care not how absurdly you contradict yourself. Next when you are empty in substantial exceptions, you come upon me for a dash or point; affirming as if I had set down a Comma for a Colon, but show me not where; and I profess I cannot find where it is in the whole Section, as you lay to my charge. wherever it is I did nothing purposely; a dash may miscarry in the writing or in the press. Therefore T. B. is lame and not I, in making such lame exceptions. Here yet for all your strutting you stand to answer to those parallel Scriptures, where is showed the Subjection of every creature to the kingdom of Christ, for hitherto you have not answered them nor those Authors, which I have brought for it. Your syllogism is not right. This you say, that name above which there is no name of God, is the name above every name. But so is the Name of Jesus. In your maior you desert your opinion, for you should have said, that name which is above every name of God, for that is your opinion. In your minor there is an equivocation, for you do not show what name you mean by the name of Jesus, seeing you will not have it called the Name Jesus.   

SECT. III.  
Wherein I show, that bowing of the Knee in this Text is not to be taken literally and expressly, for the bowing of that member of the body, which we call the knee. My first reason is because bowing in the Scripture is taken figuratively, therefore may otherwise be understood, 
Ezek 7. 17. isaiah 35. 3.  Psal. 44. 25. Hab. 3. 6. And so secondly, are knees taken metaphorically. Here Mr. Barton saith that these two reasons hold nothing: but Sir, I pray you take all my reasons together, and so they prove sufficiently what I intend, as it is said, out of the mouth of two or three witnesses every thing shall be established: one doth it not alone, but two or three united: You see, I except my two first from evidently proving, they show only that this exposition is agreeable to the Scriptures, my main strength lies in my third Reason, confirmed by the other: where I prove that because Angels, devils, souls of men must bow; besides sensitive, and insensitive creatures; which have no proper knees: therefore proper knees are not commanded. For if such knees were properly commanded, it would be injustice in God to require such knees where they are not: as in a King if he should command such a sum of money to be paid by his subjects, which he knows they are not able to pay. That which you answer to this is to no purpose; For it is absurd to say, because some creatures have knees, they are bound to bow proper knees expressly, and those creatures that have no knees, are bound to bow analogically: for the same bowing is enjoined to all, if the Text did make a difference it were something; but there is no difference in the Text. But you will prove that Angels have knees as well as Tongues, 1 Cor. 13. 1. and faces, Rev. 7. 11. and they are said to stand, to fall down, which insinuate knees; and this you say is enough to those that will be satisfied with reason; Sir this reason will not satisfy any one that knows the Scriptures: for because faces, tongues and bodily postures are ascribed to Angels, it will not follow that they have them properly, no more than because hands, face, ears, backparts, and postures of descending and marching on are ascribed to God in Scripture, that God hath these properly.  
Now because you except things insensitive from this bowing, I will overthrow you by your own infallible witness Doctor Page, 
* Instit of bowing, p. 48.  who citys sundry authors to show that this Text is to be understood of the subjection of all, both friends and enemies, to Christ, alleging for proof that place of 1 Cor. 15. 25. We must reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet; in the next verse it is subjoined, the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death: whereby it is expressly showed that death also being an enemy must bow and fulfil the Text. I would fain know now what bodily knees hath Death: Death doth in part bow already; because it is in part subdued: but how will you have Death bow at the mention of the Name Jesus? except you think the knee bones of the dead rattle in the graves, when you name Jesus in the Church over them; but you must make their hearts to understand, and the skulls to hear too, else it is past any understanding, to conceive how it can be done. But I must tell you Sir, how ever you will wrangle it out, that your friends and yourself too understand this Text figuratively. For 
* Instit. of bowing, p. 87.  Doctor Page from Origen, and 
* Ant. p. 44.  you yourself from that Author do understand it of the knees of the soul as well as of the body; so doth 
* learn to live, Chap. 14.  Sutten. Now what proper knees have souls? then what proper knees have Angels? which are purer Spirits than souls: So that understanding it thus, you must needs understand it of the whole strength of the creature, for what proper knees have souls more than other parts of the body? yea, they come nearer to proper knees then the soul; being corporeal as the proper knee is, which souls are not. Therefore you expounding the Text of soul-knees, you cannot in any sense exclude the other parts of the body, besides the proper knee, and therefore whether you will or no, you must yield to me here; If you understand the Text of express corporeal knees, then are no other knees commanded, then are not Angels and devils to bow because they have no such knees, and so it will be will-worship in you to give any part besides the knee, and then you sin, when you put of your hat, and bow your body at the name; when in so doing you do rather stiffen your knees, then bow them. If the proper knee be expressly commanded, that part only must be given and nothing else in stead of it, than you cannot understand it of soul-knees; for soul-knees are no proper knees. Therefore you must with me here (yea you do if you could see) understand by bowing every knee, the subjection of the whole creature to Christ. That {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are properly taken for such a bowing, as yields an outward expression, is nothing to the purpose, for such words as are taken properly are sometimes used improperly, as {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which properly signifieth to go forth or walk on, is improperly applied to God, Psal. 68 7. So doth the word used Gen. 18. 21. properly signify to go down, which is yet ascribed to God who properly cannot descend. So that in that I have said, 
You do not here answer the parallel of kissing Christ, Psal. 2. 12. by which subjection is signified as well as by bowing, but you say, Sect. 18. bowing and the kiss hold not; because we have the name to bow to, nor the person to kiss, but at the day of judgement he will appear; belike than you will be so bold as to kiss Christ at that day, if once you be made Lord Bishop.  I do not deny the knee; but I affirm that it is no more commanded than the soul; or other parts of the body. For the second part of this Section, viz. the confession of the tongue; you do extremely trifle with me; for you speak falsely in saying, that I exclude the tongue of the body properly so called, you see I mention it; but I understand it not of the said tongue expressly, and particularly, but in a general sense, all tongues must speak as well as this tongue, soul tongues, and all bodily tongues, the vertures of the whole creature, yea as David saith, all my bones shall say, Lord who is like to thee? Psal. 35. 10. even as the insensitive creatures, that have no tongues, are said to speak the praise of Christ 
* Rev. 5. 13. Psal 19 1, 2, 3. Psal. 148. . Yea you plainly agree with me here, for you say no more than I, and I as much as you, you say the heart, and tongue, soul and body must be subject; and so confess. Your acknowledging that irrational creatures confess Christ doth evidently overthrow your Tenet of the not bowing of those creatures; for all that in the Text confess, do also blow the knee, seeing then these confess they must needs bow; so that you and I do not greatly fall out in this Section if you could see it: but you do not see it as appeareth by your syllogism, the minor whereof I deny, and have disproved.   

SECT. IV.  
HEre I affirm, that to understand this phrase in the Name of Jesus to be at the mention of the Name Jesus cannot be paralleled in the exposition of the said phrase by any Scripture. In the name prefixed before any title of God; yea I now say before any name whatsoever, can nowhere bear this sense; first, you deny that you bow at the bare Name Jesus, but of that before, and you give me barbarous language in that I say you understand it at the mention of the Name Jesus: But if you stood not in need of Hellebore (as you say I do) you would not be so outrageous in outfacing the plain truth; you say (forsooth) at the mention of Jesus, but not at the name Jesus. Who understandeth you now? if you bow at the mention of Jesus, it must be done as well at the mention of any other title of Jesus, by which he is denominated. If not at the mention of the name Jesus, why do you keep such a stir about this name? all the world sees that you bow at the mention of this name, and no other; and if you mean it not at the time when this name is mentioned, why do you it immediately, and not let it alone till some other time? you yourself say otherwise in this Section {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is all one {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} when Jesus is named; Yea you yield at length, and forsooth you say you will overcome me with my own weapons, as when I say, Psal. 118. 10. all nations compassed me about, but in the Name of the Lord I will destroy them: would it not be a wild sense, say I, to understand it thus, at the naming of the Lord I will destroy them? You here ask me if I were well when I printed this; for say you, can there be any more intended by In the name of the Lord, than the bringing the Lord into the midst between him and his enemies? and is there any other way to do that then by the faithful mention of his name? Sir, I was better when I printed this clause than you, when you answered; it but do you expound this Text as you do, Phil. 2. 9, 10? doth In there signify time, as you expound it in Phil. 2. and match it with Gen. 1. 1? In here indeed notes the cause, but not time. So that the meaning is this, In the name of the Lord, i.e. by the power and assistance of the Lord I will destroy them: but if you will parallel this place with Phil. 2. 10. as you understand it, you must make the sense to be this. All nations compassed me about; but when the Lord is mentioned, that is, at the instant time thereof, I will destroy them, as at the very time, when Jesus is mentioned you bow; if this be the meaning of the Psalmist, I see no reason but you must have a Sword, or a pistol, or such like with you at the Church, and when the Lord is mentioned, you must fall to killing your enemies; and then when the people say good Lord deliver us, if you have any enemies there, they deliver up themselves into your hands, to be killed, and so you will not be of David's mind; for he when his adversaries were against him, gave himself to prayers, but when your enemies pray you will kill them. My next Scripture is, Act. 9 29. Saul spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, I say it would be infinitely absurd to say he spoke boldly at the naming of the Lord Jesus; you cry out against me and say is this absurd? and infinitely too? we all know that Paul was a zealous professor, and might not he be stout at the mention or naming of Jesus? he is stoutly preached, whom we fear to name. Now you cry out where is this great challenger? were I Anteus I should never rise again: but stay Sir, I am on my legs yet, to buckle with you once, and again; What, doth In signify time here, as you will have it signify at Phil. 2. 9? Nomen capitur pro professione: Name is taken for profession. So the sense is this, Paul valiantly defended the cause of Christ; but if you will have In signify the present time there, than the sense will be this; Saul preached or spoke boldly when Jesus was named, that is, as soon as ever the Name was named, as accordingly you bow. Then it will follow that whensoever you hear Jesus named you must fall to preaching, and then as soon as you come in the Common book of Prayer to the absolution, Jesus being named you must fall to preaching, and then you must curtail almost all the Divine Service, and run into that which you judge a great fault in others, go to your Sermon before you have said the Lord's Prayer, or canonical prayer; & though you should make but a short Sermon & return to your absolution, at the conclusion of it Jesus is named again, and once more you must go to preaching before you come to the Lord's Prayer; and if you preach every time Jesus is named in the divine service, you will preach oftener in a day than any of those you call Puritans, in a quarter of a year at least; and if often preaching be as you deem, a note of a Puritan, you will be the rankest Puritan in the world; yea in the absolution Jesus and Lord being both mentioned together, you must preach and kill, all at one time, and this I think will be the maddest Sermon that ever was made. In the next place as if my own weapons were not enough to strike me dead, you will strike me with your own, and what are they? First, you bring the third commandment, but this phrase in the name is not there. Next you come to Joh. 16. 23. whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name; that is, say you by faith mentioning me as mediator. And then you argue, Act. 5. 40. not to speak in the name of Jesus, either by preaching, say you, or otherwise to his glory, at our invocation over the name of Jesus is a fruitful naming, or mentioning of him; not inwardly always, but by heart and tongue also always unto God, Ephes. 5. 20. To what purpose is this brought? what frivolous stuff is here? And yet you having had me down before in your conceit, now you gall me terribly. But we will examine these places: as for Act. 5. 40. it is answered before in Act. 9 29. being a parallel place, but I add this further to it, Were the Apostles forbidden to mention the name Jesus? did not their enemy's mention Jesus as well as they?  
But you add [to his glory]. But you will have your people bow when you mention Jesus in the Church, but you will not have them question whether you do it to his glory or no; As for Iob. 16. 23. we are bidden there to pray to the Father in the name of Christ, that is, in and by Christ himself, as other places demonstrate: but I pray Sir, doth In here signify time? If you understand this place as you do Phil. 2. the sense will be this, whatsoever you ask of my Father, when Jesus is named; then it will follow that whensoever you hear Jesus named, you must fall to Prayer. And as before this sense of Act. 9 29. will drive you to preaching in the time of prayer: So here it will drive you to prayer in the time of preaching, if at any time you name Jesus in it; 
* Sect. 5. You make the mentioning of Jesus to be a sign how to know when to bow, by this reason you must make it also a sign how to know when to preach and pray.  and what a confusion will this be also?  
But to return again to these two places, Act. 9 and Ioh. 16. If Master Barton bring Phil. 2. 9 to the meaning of these two places as he understands them, he cannot but know that preaching and praying is begun, and continued before and after Jesus is named, and not then begun only at the instant time of naming of it, for Jesus is named but now and then; then according to this you must continue all along your Gesture of bowing, throughout preaching and praying, though the name Jesus be seldom mentioned; and than you must neither kneel nor stand, but have your body bowed all the time half way to the ground, and then there shall not be any visible appearance of bowing at the name Jesus more than ordinary, then at any other name whatsoever, which may be named in preaching or prayer: and if any should see you in this posture, continuing half bowed to the ground, they would think you to be disposed to another kind of business then preaching or prayer. I appeal here to all the world whether you have not here given yourself such a shameful foil as you will never be able to recover. My exposition of Psal. 63. 4. you mislike not; but yet it cannot bear your sense of Phil. 2. 9 for though the Saints have used to lift up the hands in prayer, yet I think they are not precisely bound to it; and if they were, it is senseless to gather from this or any other place, that they are bound to a new act of lifting up the hands every time the name of God sounds, which sense you must put upon it, if you match it with Phil. 2. 9 you have not proved yet that In the name signifieth anywhere at the time of mentioning the name, neither can you; here then one main pillar of your cause is shaken down.   

SECT. V.  
TO my gathering up my sense together you wrong me, for saying that I do not keep the analogy of the advancing Christ's glory above all glories; for I name dignities, which is all one. And Doctor Page saith that the name Jesus was made a name beneath all names, and how do I then offend in saying that Christ received a name beneath all names in his humiliation; 
Instit. of bowing, p. 41.  though we differ in the sense of the word name? And Sir let the wind be in what quarter it will, I trust I shall always stand for outward worship: but not for this your superstitious worship: And I must tell you Sir, that better scholars than yourself, that are farther from Arianism, than you from Antichristianism, do understand Name here for power and glory, as generally all our modern Divines 
* Zanchy your own witness so understandeth it.  And when I say, Christ shall be manifested to be Lord, &c. I do not mean, given is manifested, but that he shall fully manifest himself to the Lord by his glorious power, 
* Dedit illi nomen quod est supranomen, sensui est, Christum, qua etiam homo, propter suam obedientiam & humilitatem supra omnia fuisse a patre exaltatum, ut nulla sit vel in coelis, vel in terris par dignitas, Da 369. Elohim, l. 3. c. 2. p. 430.  especially at the day of judgement, when also all tongues shall acknowledge him so to be. For your exposition of the Text, as I lay to your charge, it must be so, for the Text limits no time to us more than to any other creature, if we are bound to bow at the Name Jesus: but at preaching, and prayer, at public and private devotion, especially on the Lord's day; then the Devils and damned are no more bound: than you must have preaching and prayer in hell; and Devils and damned to observe the Lord's day, and to have public and private devotion: and what I have said against this crotchet of yours in Sect. 10, 11. neither Dr. Page here, nor yourself there have taken off, for you say nothing to the purpose.  
But you will have the exposition of the Text to be this: the Lord Jesus by the union, and for our salvation was humbled: wherefore God exalted him, and set up the name Jesus above every name; that for the union, and our salvation, every rational creature should bow at the nameof Jesus; which you will have to be at the mention of Jesus.  
Now whereas you esteem my interpretation to be short, hard, doubtful; I appeal to all the world whether I have added or detracted any thing, or have not made good every clause from the Scriptures. And that your interpretation is not according to the Scriptures I have proved; and besides you add to the Text: for these words (for the union, and for our salvation) are not in the Text.  
In my notation of the absurdities of your opinion, I say again, to understand Name for glory, the name is known what is given Christ: but to understand name for a proper name; it is not showed what name it is in this clause, (God gave him a name above every name) and whereas you bid me look for it in the 10. verse, I refer myself to this clause, and in verse 10. you contradict yourself; for you still fall out with me for calling it the Name Jesus: You do not then show what Name it is; the rest of your answer is but railing and very babbling and is sufficiently answered already.  
In my second note I say again that in your exposition you do not denote the person properly, to whom the bowing shall be done, but only set down a time when the bowing shall be done, neither have you answered it; for the Name Jesus, as you mean it, is distinct from the person. But you say, how shall we know when to bow if it be not signified by some sign? I reply, by what sign shall we know how to honour the Father? you will not obey without signs. Those famous Churches that abominate your bowing, know how and when to honour Christ better than yourself.  
Thirdly, I say again that in this your exposition you apply no honour at all to the name, if you make In to signify time, but only make it a watchword when to bow, you set not down to whom. And if you understand In for To, as Bishop Andrew's doth understand it also, than you give the name the whole bowing of the regard, and honour also, call it what you will, and none at all to the person: but referring it to both you add to the Text, and either way you make it Idolatry; in the first sense it is evidently plain, and in the second Bishop Babington parallels it with Idolatry, 
Exposition of the Creed.  you know it well enough though you will take no notice of it. And you are an impudent person to say that Bishop Babington in that place saith nothing against your sense; for he neither understandeth Name to be Jesus, but power, and glory, neither doth he understand bowing literally, but for subjection, and he calls your worship syllable worship, and saith such worshippers are given up to delusions: As for Dr. whitaker's, he is as full as any against your sense, though he might hold it indifferent, so bowing be at other names also; but sole bowing at the name Jesus he holds unlawful, and utterly damns your exposition; not only in that place which I have quoted, but in his answer to William Regnolds 
* Page 398. ; your Argument in the end is but a mere begging of the Question without proof, and so I leave it. As for Sir Edward Deering, he is no expositor of Scripture: I cannot judge of him, because I have not seen him.   

SECT. VI.  
HEre I show that the said exposition of this Text is not confirmed by any correspondent Scripture speaking of the same thing, and there be some words and phrases so expounded here, as the like words, and phrases will not bear that sense in any Scripture, as I have fully proved in the premises (this I say, and this is my meaning though you be willing to wrest me) therefore this is a false exposition. The consequence I prove from Rom. 12. 6. and 2 Pet. 1. 20. you say the meaning of these Scriptures is that all interpretations must be made according to the axioms of the Christian faith. But granting this it makes against you; for the axioms of our faith must be proved by the Scriptures. Your answer to my testimonies of Augustine and Zanchy is nothing at all, but this; is Augustine; is Zanchy for you? which is frivolous. To your curse in the conclusion, I oppose that of the Psalmist, 
Psal. 109.  Psal. 109. He loved cursing, therefore it shall happen to him.   

SECT. VII.  
FOr the Argument is this Section, there is nothing to any purpose said to it, but impertinent trifling more than hath been answered before, and shall be answered afterward. Therefore for brevity's sake I pretermit it. Only this I tell you Sir, that though all men in some degree of Subjection do now fulfil the Text, will they, nill they, Christ being Lord of all, yet all cannot bow, yea are not bound to bow at the Name Jesus, as Infants and deaf men, and those Nations that never heard of Jesus, and in whose hearts the sense of the name is not written. And though Chrysostom do understand {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of all nations, it makes against you, for the name Jesus doth not concern all in all nations; yet other Interpreters do understand {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} of all things.   

SECT. VIII.  
IN this Section I must be large, for upon this the whole Question dependeth; and we shall see whether or no it runs out of it veins, as you charge me, or, you in your answer have not run out of your self and from the truth. To let pass impertinent things, and railings, and your false charging of me, that I depart from the sense of the economical kingdom; I come presently to the Argument, 
See Sect. 2.  which is briefly this. Bowing at the mention of the name Jesus is not the bowing to be performed at the day of judgement, therefore it is not now commanded in the Text: The consequent you grant, but you deny the antecedent and affirm that this bowing shall be at the day of judgement.  
your charging me with a contradiction is but mere sophistry: the true bowing shall be there in degree, and at the day of judgement perfectly, but not your bowing; but what is your reason for it? none of any antiquity wrote against it. A pretty reason; how could they write against it when they never heard of it? by this reason any heretic may bring up a new heresy and plead for himself, none before spoke against it. But how do you answer my Reasons against it? First I say there is no Scripture for it, and it is impossible if it were so, that so many clear Scriptures speaking so fully of the day of judgement should say nothing of this; but you say you have more clear Scriptures for it, than I have against it, else you will give up the cause.  
Sir, you have need indeed to be well advised what you deliver, for you make it so necessary a point of faith, that whosoever will not believe it, shall miss eternal life, & that whosoever will not now practise it shall be damned for ever. For points of Faith and necessary worship I must have certain rules from Scripture, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 59 & p. 65.  Psal. 8. 20. Micah 6. 8. Faith in an evidence, Heb. 1. 11. I must be so sure of it, that if an angel from heaven should teach otherwise to hold him accursed; you must then bring such sure Scriptures that there must be cast no just cause of doubt, else you will bring sin upon all that practise it, Rom. 14. 23. you must so confirm it by Scriptures, as to leave all without excuse, that will not believe it, and practise it, if you can do this you carry all, if not, you overthrow all; for this Section is the hinge of the Question. Now we will peruse your Scriptures: First, you urge that of Phil. 2. 9 on which lieth the question, most ridiculous; The next place is 2 Thess. 1. 10. 12. but for the tenth Verse no name is mentioned at all. And for the twelfth verse, the words are these, That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and you in him. I answer, that very good authors, as Calvin and Marlorate do understand it of Christ being glorified by us in an holy life. Thus saith Calvin, Revocat nos, &c. he calls us back to the chief end of our life, that we should serve the Lord of glory; it is chiefly to be noted that they shall again be glorified in Christ, who have set forth the glory of Christ. This agrees with the precedent verse as Marlorate on that place well observes. And to this doth Zanchy agree, and though he do also allow the other, and apply it to the day of judgement; yet doth he not understand it of any literal name, but of the person of Christ, for thus he saith. The sum of these words is this, that Christ shall be glorified in us as the head in the members, when he endueth us with that glory wherewith himself is glorified. I have proved Section 1. First, that this phrase, Name of Jesus, or Name of God, or Lord, doth usually denote the power and glory of God; or Jesus either implicitly or expressly: And it doth never anywhere denote any bare title. Now here is your Argument, the Lord Jesus shall be glorified in the Saints at the day of judgement. Ergo, all rational creatures shall bow corporal knees at the name Jesus at that day: a very senseless inconsequent: I am very confident that you cannot bring any orthodox interpreter to understand that Text of the literal Name Jesus. If it could be proved, Jesus is no more mentioned there, than Lord and Christ; and there is no mention of bowing at any name. Those Texts of isaiah 45. 23. and Rom. 14. 11. though they be to be understood of the judgement, make nothing for the purpose. Thus we see how trimly Master Barton hath answered my first reason.  
My second reason is this; To what end shall the Name Jesus be named at that day, that all should bow at the mention of it, when Christ shall 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? Here you are very snuff; as it is usual with you when your answers are most weak, there to be most outrageous: you tell me it is a demand, rather than a disproof: but disproofes by questions as ordinarily most vehement; but you here fearfully wrest my words; for I have not said that the name Jesus shall not be mentioned at all at that day, but that it shall not be mentioned that all shall bow at it, but if I should have denied that the name Jesus shall be then mentioned, it is more than you can prove by any clear Scriptures; Because than you refer me to your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. we will examine the Scriptures you there mention.  
First, you bring 2 Thess. 1. 7. where it is said that in that day the Lord Jesus shall be revealed: but this is spoken of the person, not of the literal Name: it is no more but this; Christ himself shall appear in judgement; and here the emphasis is in the word Lord, being the title of his honour, rather than in Jesus. Your second instance is 2 Thess. 1. 12. but that is answered already. The third place is 2 Cor. 1. 14. where the day of judgement is called the day of the Lord Jesus, this is all one with the first instance; upon this you descant, shall he have a day, and shall he not be mentioned? But it will not follow that because the said day is called the day of the Lord Jesus, that therefore the Name Jesus shall be mentioned, because there is nothing spoken of the bare literal name, but person. Your next place is Phil. 2. 10. Every tongue shall confess Jesus Christ to be Lord: you than fall very furiously on them that shall question the Name Jesus to be then mentioned, in this manner? If they be scholars, can they be thus ignorant? if Divines, be they not infatuated? if both, are they not in contempt? But soft Sir, better scholars, better Divines, and worthier men than yourself cannot necessarily make your conclusion from this place.  
The Apostle speaking here in the third person shows what shall be at the day of judgement, and therefore might well speak of Christ in his proper name, yet it will not follow thence that the name Jesus shall be then mentioned, when they that shall then appear shall not speak in the third person; but shall speak to Christ in the second person before his face. But I pray Sir tell me, if the Name Jesus be to be then sounded out, who shall sound it out? you did once tell me, that the trump should do it, but that is ridiculous. Shall Christ himself sound it out? there is no proof of that. Shall those that shall appear before him sound it out? there is no proof of that; there be sundry Scriptures that they shall call him Lord, but not one that they shall call him Jesus at that day: So than the Apostle might well say speaking of Christ in the third person, before the day of judgement, that every tongue shall confess Jesus to be Lord at that day, for in calling him Lord they call Jesus Lord, though they do not Name the word Jesus; As when any Sir to your face shall call you Priest, it may be justly said, when you are spoken of in the third person, that they called Thomas Barton Priest, though they named not Thomas when they so called you. So than he that doubts this say you, doubts all, this may justly be doubted, and so all may be doubted. But if you could prove this to be true, as for my part I will not peremptorily deny it, though there is no clear Scripture for it, yet what can you get by this proof? will it therefore follow, that all shall bow at the mention of the Name Jesus? This is your Argument or it is nothing at all, but it is a mad inconsequence. This consequence, if good, will make certainly for bowing at the Name Lord, which shall then be mentioned by confession. Christ indeed shall be bowed to by all as Lord, but not at the Name Lord, Christ shall be confessed to be Lord, therefore to him as Lord shall the bowing be performed, if the Text had said, that every tongue shall confess the Lord Christ to be Jesus, then had Jesus been the Name to be confessed, but seeing that they shall confess Jesus Christ to be Lord, it is plain, that Lord is the Name, as being said, that all the Subjects in England do confess Charles to be King, they do not properly now confess the King to be Charles, but Charles to be King. And whereas you return me to your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Tract. 7. I appeal to the judicious, whether there be any thing to the purpose, or whether that I have here set down do not overthrow all there spoken. But whereas you say that the confession of Jesus is the utmost end in regard of ourselves, 
Act. 4 12  because there is no other name wherein we shall be saved: This is nothing to the Text: For Angels, Devils and Reprobates, that must bow as well as we, cannot have this end, for it is not a Name to them for salvation. again you wrest the said Text pitifully for your own ends, for what orthodox expositor can you produce to make Name there the literal Name Jesus? that it is meant of the person of our Saviour, the precedent words are plain. 
* Calvin in Locum.  Explicatio est proximae sententiae, &c. It is the explication of the next sentence, in Christ alone is salvation, for by name he understands the cause or mean. 
* In part 2. Sect. 1. you say I slander the Church for giving my judgement concerning the translation of Phil. 2. 9 but here yourself alter the translation for your own ends.  again you translate {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} cunningly, and purposely to hide your craft. Wherein is as much as whereby, and so our last translation reads it, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} hath the force of a causal, and if you mean so too, then understanding Name for the literal Name Jesus, it cannot be avoided but you must make the Name Jesus our Saviour, which is flat Idolatry.  
Next you fall foul upon my Argument, and tell me that it is very false to say, that Christ shall come as a Lord to all, and not as Jesus, and that the simple people are abused by my misapplying the Text, Matth. 25. 37. 44. But that I have neither abused the Text, nor the people, I have made good sufficiently; but that you have done both it is evident to your shame. But you have not set down my words right, for I say thus, He shall not come as a Jesus to all that shall bow. But by two reasons you will prove that I have misapplied the Text. The first is by a Question: Who is Lord, say you, but Jesus? Here you absurdly confound these two Names, making them all one. I deny not that Jesus the person is Lord, but I deny that the Name Jesus is the Name Lord. Your second reason is, because Jesus being the Saviour of us, is the confounding Jesus of his, and our enemies: this is your Argument; to whom he is not a saving Jesus, he is a confounding Jesus, so one way he is a Jesus to all. But Sir the name Jesus is a saving, not a confounding Name, and it was given not for Angels, Devils and Reprobates, but for his people only, and that for salvation, not for destruction, all this is plain from Matth. 1. 21. Seeing then you affirm that the bowing in the Text must be done in the sense of this Name, the Angels cannot bow in the sense of this Name, except you will make them sinners; for Jesus is a Saviour from sin: much less can Devils and Reprobates bow to him in that sense, except you will have them to be saved. again it is utterly against the Scripture to hold, that Jesus as Jesus is a confounder, for all the while that he was most commonly called by this Name and was in the state of saving us, 
Act. 10.  he was meek, mild; 
Luke 9 56.  went about doing good, would not break the bruised Reed, nor quench the smoking Flax. When his Disciples requested of him to command fire from heaven to destroy those that would not receive him, he rebukes them saying, The son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them; mark the reason, he would not destroy, 
Joh. 12. 47.  because he came to save. So again, If any hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; consider the reason, for saith he, I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. You see then, he cannot judge or destroy as Jesus; salvation and destruction are contrary.  
If any object, that this was in the time of his humiliation, but he shall come otherwise to judgement; I answer, the sense of the Name can never be altered, God cannot deny his word; If at any time salvation be opposed to destruction or judgement it is ever so. The name Jesus therefore being an humble, & lowly name (as you confess) and a saving name, cannot be the Name in which he shall come as universal Judge; but that must be a Name of power and authority over all as I have proved.  
But might I grant, as I will not, that Jesus is a confounding Name to some, yet it cannot be a confounding Name to those nations that never knew him, for these never offended him in this name; His Spirit of illumination, they never resisted, His Gospel they never rejected, His precious blood they never trod under their feet. Christ is an upright Judge, and shall come to recompense every one according to his works: 
Rom. 26.  Now therefore it would be injustice in Christ, (which were blasphemy once to think) if he should destroy them as Jesus, against whom as Jesus they never offended. This is contrary to Rom. 2. 12. They that sin without Law, shall perish without Law, Christ shall judge them indeed as Jehovah, for the breach of the Law of nature, which he hath written in their hearts, but not as Jesus, for so they never offended him. 
De 369. Elohim, l. c. 3. 3 p. 437.  I will bring your own witness Zanchy against you, Causa Vnica; The only cause why the creature boweth knees to God is not because he is Judge, or mediator, but only because he is Jehovah, which he proveth from, Deut. 6. 13. Isa. 45. 23. Rom. 14. 11. Now let us briefly sum up all: you have not proved by any clear Scriptures, that Jesus shall be named at the day of judgement; if you could, it would not follow thence, that bowing shall be at the mention of that name. You cannot prove that In the name doth anywhere signify at the mention of the Name. Sundry Scriptures you have wickedly falsified for it, as I have proved Sect. 4. If you could prove it from some Scriptures, yet seeing this phrase is often used, and hath other meaning in other Scriptures, yet there will be a just doubt, whether it be so meant in this place or no. Then those that shall stand to be judged at that day, whom you damn to hell for not performing it now, shall have just cause to plead against Christ in this manner; Lord in all thy other commandments thou deliveredst thy will plainly unto me, but here in this Text thou hast delivered it in such words as are not agreeable in sense to any part of thy word elsewhere; or so as I could not understand thy meaning, whether it were according to thy will, or no; so that because I might justly doubt it, I could not practise it without sinning against thee; and how derogatory will this be to Christ's honour that the judged shall have just cause of exception against the Judge? Again, it is against the Scripture to hold that he shall confound any in the sense of the name Jesus. It signifieth a Saviour, and so Angels, Devils, and Reprobates cannot bow to him; It is against the Scriptures to hold that he shall confound any as Jesus, against whom as Jesus they never sinned.  
Therefore Master Barton you have showed yourself a Master schismatic in delivering an opinion that was never known in the Christian world, till you uttered it, making it a necessary point of faith, threatening the neglect of the practice of it with eternal damnation, which you cannot prove by the Scriptures, but is contrary to the Scriptures. Therefore you make yourself a very Antichrist in creating new points of faith, and making laws to bind the conscience; 
Matth. 23. 8. 10.  and therefore without repentance, 
Jam. 4 1.  yourself are liable to damnation. It follows then expressly that all the gay learned stuff in your Arn. as touching the Question is overthrown, and falls down upon your head; your wound is incurable, it cannot be healed, and if any shall follow your doctrine and practice, of necessity we shall have a new sect of Bartonists.  
But you hold another Crotchet as ridiculous as this, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} p. 62. 63.  viz. that the name Jesus shall to all eternity be bowed to after the day of judgement. This you would fain prove from, Rev. 22. 4. where it is said, that the Saints shall see Christ's face, and his name written on their foreheads, and then you say, we shall see it always, hear it always; but I pray what show of Text can you bring that it shall be always heard? it seems now you make it indifferent to bow to the name scene as well as heard, but you are besides the Text. The best expositors hold that it doth not concern heaven. Thus saith Master Brightman on that place, they shall enjoy a clearer vision than before, 
Zach. 14. ●●.  yet far from that which they shall enjoy in heaven; and he applieth the prophecy of Zachary to these times.  
But grant that it should be referred to heaven, yet first, It cannot concern the state of glory after the day of judgement, but before; for Christ's coming is mentioned after in the 12. Verse of this Chapter. Secondly, it is absurd to take it literally: If it should be so, it denotes the name Jesus no more than any other name, and there is nothing consequent that any bowing shall be to it: but it is not so. Thus saith Master Brightman on that parallel place, Rev. 1. 14. You may observe that this is no sensible signing. Bowing is subjection, and Jesus is the name of our Mediator: this Doctrine will make Christ Mediator for ever, contrary to 1 Cor. 15. 24. for if we must bow to him in heaven by the name of his Mediatorship, we must bow also by the virtue of his Mediatorship: and so the Saints shall never be in perfect bliss, nor the enemies perfectly destroyed. And I pray how shall the devils and damned bow after the day of judgement at this name, (for if the Saints must, they must also) except you will grant that the name Jesus shall be also written upon their foreheads? None ever in this point exceeded so far in blasphemy and absurdity as you have done.  
You gave a childish answer to my third Reason, for if it be no more than corporal bowing at a Name, a child can perform the like to his father; and so Christ should have a weak kingdom. As for Bishop Andrew's, I am not the first that have so taken him, as I have set down, and he is plainly so to be taken, (otherwise there will be no sense in the words) and so being taken, the consequences that I have noted will directly follow.  
Though names be metaphorical Images, yet they represent the Person to our understanding as well as true Images, and I suppose that if a Jew should see you bow to the Name Jehovah written upon a wall (for writing you make all one with mentioning, as before, and there is no cause why you should do otherwise by your interpretation) that he would fling a stone in your face; and I persuade me, that if a subject should bow to the King's Name or picture before his face, he would defy him; and though we are bound to confess Christ according to his word, yet are we nowhere commanded to adore a bare Name; which to do before Christ's face, I say again, is worse than idolatry.  
For the two Arguments in the conclusion; for the first of them, the minor which you except against, hath been proved, and till that you explain how the marginal note fails in your accusation you are answered.  
For the second Argument; The denied Major hath been sufficiently proved, and so doth Calvin testify for me, where he saith expressly that all things are now in subjection, 
On Phil. 2. 9  though the Subjection shall not be perfect till the day of judgement.   

SECT. ix..  
I Say here that this exposition makes disparity of worship between the persons of the trinity, contrary to John 5. 23. therefore it is false: you say it doth not make disparity: the main evasion you have here is your conceit, that the Name Jesus is in itself the essential name of God; but made proper to the son by dispensation. But if you could prove that God in his essence was ever called Jesus (which you cannot prove) there might be some show for you; but yet this is nothing, for whether it be proper to the son in itself, or by dispensation, or {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, pertains not to the question, but whether it be proper or no; that it is proper, you cannot deny. Then it will follow that to perform a duty to a name properly denoting the son, and not doing the like to the father's proper name, is honouring the son above the Father: It is a monstrous error to say that Jesus is the essential name of God. Hence it will follow, that God had his essence because of man's sin; and that if man had not sinned God had not been: a most Blasphemous, and yet inevitable consequence. Therefore Sir, prove this, or all that you say in this Section is but babbling: for by this conceit you answer all.  
I have not slandered you in saying that by the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} you understood a trueness of worship, and not every way an equal correspondency: you have affirmed it sundry times, and once at a table, when our main dispute was about the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. In my reply I have not changed the principle, but you have run yourself into a contradiction; for whereas you hold it indifferent to bow at any name of the Trinity if we please; than you presently say 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, but one in themselves, and that our salvation was wrought equally by them three, only terminated in the Son; for by giving toleration above specified you overthrow this demonstrative end which you set down, and this reason is but a fantasy of your brain without proof.  
Whereas in my reply to the second answer, I affirm that you cannot personally bow to all the persons at the name Jesus: because the distinct names of any one person do not personally denominate the other persons; and therefore if you say, that you bow personally to every person at the Name Jesus, you confound the persons. You tell me that a father is a father only in respect of his son, and so is a son in respect of the father: but yet though a father hath reference to the son, and a son to the father, yet is not one the other, and what is done to the one, is not done personally to the other; as if you bow to the King you do not by the same act bow to the Prince. And when I say, I believe in God the Father, I profess my faith in the son essentially, and so I do in the Father, when I say I believe in God the son. In that you say that I am a Triformian, for affirming that every person is in one Divine essence, 
Catech. p. 155.  is but one of Thomas barton's bald Crotchets, for hereby I acknowledge but one divine essence to all the Persons. Divines do ordinarily say so. As Ursinus, In una dei Essentia; 
De Trinitate l. 8. c. 6. p. 3 58.  in one essence of God three persons do subsist. Zanchy also shall witness against you, Tres personae una & eadem constant essentia 
* See Aretius loco 7. de Deo, & Bucanus, loco 1. de Trinitate. . And I must tell you Sir, in that you say that every person is honoured alike personally, at the name Jesus you overthrow the Text of Phil. 2. 9 for as the Name there above every Name (as it is evident) is proper only to the second person, because he is only mediator and solely incarnate, so the bowing in the Text is due to him alone distinctly, and personally; for by the same reason if we must bow to the Son together with the Father, and the Holy Ghost personally by this Text, it will follow that they were incarnate, and mediators, and shall come to judgement as well as the second person. To conclude, this answer doth fully overthrow that place of Joh. 5. 23. for out of question our Saviour intends there a distinction of persons, and so a distinction of the son's honour, else he should have spoken obscurely and to no purpose: for if there be not a distinction of worship there required, but that the Person of the Father must be necessarily honoured in the person of the son without distinction; then there can be no comparison made between the honour of the one and the other, and so our Saviour should confound his own rule; for it could not be known whether the son be honoured as the Father is honoured, or no.  
For my two Arguments in the end, which you call syllogisms (though I note neither major, minor, nor conclusion, neither is any bound to reason always from direct syllogisms) the one is drawn from the Premises, in which you say there are 4. Termini (whereby you wrong me, but indeed your syllogisms are nothing else, but equivocatious and sophistry) indeed I make two opposite inferences in the same for brevity's sake, which none but Cavaliers will blame. The last argument is taken from the essence, which to please you shall be this syllogism.  
Every honour of the son equal to the honour of the Father, is so to honour the son in the Father as the Father is honoured in the son.  
But to honour the Father by bowing at the name of the Son, and not to honour the Son by bowing at the name of the Father, is not so to honour the Son in the Father, as the Father is honoured in the son. Ergo, This honour is not an equal honour.   

SECT. X.  
NO marvel if you be not pleased with my Argument, seeing you are not pleased with your own syllogism which you put in stead of mine. My argument would have served a reasonable man, seeing you desire full syllogisms, I will not be beholding to you, but will reduce the arguments into two syllogisms, seeing it cannot be so well contained in one.  
No unjust or cruel command is God's command. But to command all creatures to bow at the name Jesus is a cruel and unjust command. Ergo, this command is not Gods.  
The minor is thus proved.  
Every command that enjoins that to be done by any that have no created power to perform it, is a cruel and unjust command. But to command bowing at the Name Jesus enjoineth that to be done by many of the creatures, that have no created power to perform it. Ergo this is a cruel command, and so not Gods.  
No reasonable man that compares your Answer to the Argument cannot but say but that your Answer is extremely frivolous. First, you make an objection which I told you I meant to prevent, God indeed may require where he gives no special grace, but not if he had given no created power.  
Many things here babbled have been answered before, which I now pretermit for brevity's sake.  
To my question, how devils, and damned souls shall bow at the name Jesus, you shuffle in your answer most pitifully, first you say, devils shall bow, as they confess: Though they called him Jesus, yet you prove not that they then made a curtsy. I acknowledge the devils shall tremble; yet that trembling is not that kind of bowing you understand here; for you make it an act of Religion, or at least a religious ceremony. But you say they shall tremble most of all at the Name Jesus, wherein they are conquered: but what mean you by wherein here? if you mean whereby as a cause, as you must so mean, else it is nonsense, than you make the literal name to conquer them, which is Blasphemy, and Idolatry. No marvel if such as you be, put all Religion in bowing at the name Jesus, seeing you think to conquer the Devils by it. Sir, you call this name an honey name, an humble name, a poor name, Pag. 2. Sect. 2. how shall they tremble rather at this sweet name, this humble name, then at the powerful and terrible Name Jehovah? It cannot sink into the brains of them that have but common reason to conceive it. And surely the Devils be fools as long as they have liberty to walk too, and fro, if ever they come to Church; for in thinking to confound others they confound themselves; for if once they hear Jesus named they must fall flat upon their faces for fear, as you say, which confusion they might avoid if they come not at devotions; for if they do, than woe be to them. And then they might always avoid trembling; for themselves need not name Jesus except they will at any time. How should they be forced to name it? If their naming Jesus be their torment, they are mad, if they torment themselves when they may choose For my instance in damned souls, how they should bow at the Name Jesus in Hell, seeing there is no divine service in Hell; and these men hold that it is not necessary for any of us, but at such a time; we may say they, if we will, bow at other times, but than we must, because the Church commands it; and seeing there is nothing in hell but blasphemy, and these hold that when men swear by Jesus, which is nothing so bad as the Damned blaspheming; it is no season to bow, you hear cannot tell how to answer, but are entangled in the briars; and therefore cry out of blasphemy: but Sir, it is plain blasphemy in you, as will be proved: but at length you say that bowing and blaspheming will consist. They shall blaspheme, say you, because they cannot choose but bow; what preposterous foppery is here? On earth you bow, because you mention Jesus; in hell they shall blaspheme, because they shall bow: so it seems that bowing shall cause the blasphemy; but I wot, Sir, that they shall blaspheme by the name; they must first then blaspheme, how else shall they bow? Their bowing you make to be their horror, and trembling, in lying flat on their faces, and crouching down under the name Jesus, as you do the Devils: if this be so, then surely they may escape torment if they will. If the name Jesus torment them, it must be by mentioning, for so you understand the Text: but what need they mention it? If they do not mention it always, which were absurdity to grant, then are they not tormented always; and if they be not compelled to mention it always, they be never compelled to do it; if they be not compelled to it, what need they do it? and if they need not do it, what need they be tormented; seeing they be tormented at the Name, as these men say? Yea if they should mention the name never so oft by blasphemy, in hell, how should they fulfil the Text, seeing these men hold it not necessary for us to fulfil the Text, but at public devotion on the Lord's days, though we may, say they, at other devotions? Seeing then the damned are not bound to Lord's days, and have no public devotions, how shall they fulfil the Text, and then how shall they be damned, seeing their fulfilling the Text is by their damnation? Happy damned, if this Doctrine were true: The Pope was wont to deliver the souls out of purgatory for money, but these will deliver the damned out of hell for nothing.   

SECT. XI.  
Wherein I show that this exposition will bring the service of God into bondage, in making us to perform it at every man's will, therefore it is a false exposition; the consequent I prove from Gal. 5. 1. but you will have that place understood of the Doctrine of Justification by the Law; which though it be one thing, yet to observe ceremonies for conscience sake is another, as appeareth from Gal. 4. 10. You observe days, and months, and times, and years; and this is your case that are an observer of times, making the  
time of naming Jesus especially holy for adoration. The Text is against all bondage in worship: if we be free from the bondage of the ceremonial commanded worship, much less should we come into bondage by any new traditions. Your answer is as much to the purpose as snow for harvest.  
It is not worth a reply, it comes not near the matter; you have answered nothing to the instance; that every command in Scripture limited to a time binds ordinarily to that time; you cannot produce any exception; and then if this be a command to bow at the Name of Jesus, it must be a command to bind whensoever it sounds: and it is not in the Power of all the world to alter, diminish, or limit any of God's unlimited commands; therefore I say that your rule of affirmative precepts cannot hold in this place. And this here is not answered, Sect. 5. as you say. Doctor Page his instance of Prayer, 1 Thes. 5. is taken indefinitely, Pray continually, i. e. every day, or at every occasion: but as you understand this Text, the determinate time present is set down when to bow, but you say it is to be done at times of confessing, which is in time of Divine Service. But I hope Sir, that Devils and damned in hell do not observe times of confession, nor divine service, which bow as well as we. But Sir, as you expound the Text, confession doth not regulate the time of bowing, for the name Jesus doth that, and also the time of confession, for bowing and confession are connected by a conjunction copulative, and the season of bowing and confession both are set down to be at the mentioning of the Name Jesus, so that it will follow if this interpretation be true, whensoever Jesus is named, you must both bow and confess, and so Jesus being named at every confession will call for bowing, and confession for ever. Therefore this expasition drawing with it such an unavoidable absurdity, cannot be God's command. I cannot choose but smile to see you who before understood this bowing, of the express corporal knees, now being caught in the Briars here, to unstand it of the Tongue. When men abuse the Name, say you, than the Text is fulfilled by reproving or avoiding the company.  
The damned would thank you, if when they hear their fellows blaspheme, you could show them a way how to avoid their company. And seeing the Text concerns all, by this means you make the devils to reprove sin, and the damned rebuke their fellows when they blaspheme. But how do you answer my instance of the third Commmandement? for that binds to inward reverence at all times and places, when we mention any of God's titles: If external reverence at the Name Jesus be also God's command, why should it not do the like? This is your answer, in the very performance of this one duty (Mark this in the very performance, that is, (ipso facto) is expressed our performance of the first Table, our faithful acknowledgement of the true God, and humble worshipping of him: a reverend usage of his holy name, and sanctifying his Sabbath in due obedience; but you might as well have put in the second Table too, and then it would have been Catholic obedience indeed; but I believe the first Table was observed before this foppery was devised, and I know that for the most part, the strictest observers of this ceremony are as profane persons, as any alive. And then surely the devils and damned do perform the first Table too, for they must perform the same injunction.  
To my last instance, that this exposition will draw out bowing, and confession to all perpetuity, that they shall never be ended. You answer me by Master Pryn, whom in scorn you call my confessor, that makes uncovering the head a duty in the first of Cor. 11. 4. which will not captivate us: no more doth this (say you) but there is great difference between reverence in God's house and bowing the knees every time Jesus is named, from this Text: for this will breed an unavoidable slavery; which cannot tend to the Glory but dishonour of God: What is objected besides is answered already.   

SECT. XII.  
MY Argument here is this, that this exposition doth eclipse the glory of Christ's kingdom, therefore it is false: The antecedent I prove divers ways. First, the true exposition amplifieth Christ's honour in these words, God gave him a name, as I instance in that parallel place, Ephes. 1. 21. and as it is alluded to by the Type, Dan. 2. 48. but the other exposition doth rather diminish Christ Glory, for it attributes to him a Name distinct from power and Authority. First, you deny that Ephes. 1. 21. is a parallel place, but so you deny the judgement of the best expositors who do parallel them together; and that Dan. 2. 48. in the type is also parallel to this place & Text, I appeal to any that are judicious, and you have not disproved it but by your denial. Because I expound Name for universal dominion, you tell me, that nothing takes me but dominion and dignity, but it is a name of mercy that God most delighteth in, if we will have salvation, say you. Power must be poured forth in mercy; But what is all this to this Text? any thing shall take me agreeable with it, but the fantasy of your brain shall not take me: you calling Name in this Text a name of mercy, you apply it to the elect only; but the name here concerns the Devils and reprobates also, yourself being Judge. Therefore, if you will have this name in itself to be a Name of mercy, you must make Christ to show mercy to Devils and Reprobates, or else you must deny that they bow. This I say, the Name in the Text is a name of supreme authority over all, denoting Christ to be King of Kings, and Lord of Lords; but you affirm that the Name Jesus doth include these and all other glorious titles. See how wayward you be; before, all the stir was about signification, and now you talk of inclusion: but I deny that the name Jesus as a Name, being as you call it, a Name of poverty and humility, and communicated to others, doth properly include in it the name King of Kings; why according to my stating the question, which I have proved to be according to the Text, and other correspondent Scriptures, you should lay to my charge, that I go about to make the world believe that Christ redeemed us by a powerful hand, but not by price, and that Christ's sufferings were to confirm his Doctrine, and not to sanctify us by his blood, I know not, except you mean this Text concerneth Christ's redeeming us by his blood, and then, as I said, you must make Christ to redeem the Devils, and then by your Doctrine, you must make Christ to suffer again, and redeem us when he comes in his most glorious kingdom: and so whereas you say I look like a Socinian, certain I am you look more like an Antichristian. To my second reason you confess Christ Lord of every creature: and thus you contradict yourself: for so the subjection must be of every creature, here employed by bowing the knee. Seeing then many creatures cannot do their duty as you understand the Text, in this sense he cannot be Lord of every creature. The residue is answered abundantly before.  
To my third reason I have showed at large, Sect. 3. that you understanding the Text literally cannot understand it figuratively: For my part I deny not the knee, but I grant it not in a literal way, and shall yield it according to the true meaning of the Text, but not according to your fancy; but here you contradict yourself, for you will have knees and hearts bow together, therefore you understand the Text figuratively: And seeing you join them together at the Name Jesus, why did you sever them in conference with me, whether you gave the heart or no I cannot tell, sure I am, you did not give the knee; if you did give the heart, by your doctrine you should have given the knee, if the inward bowing were then necessary, why not the outward? Dr. Page making this bowing a ceremony distinct from a substantial duty, I affirm makes it but a poor honour, and advancement to Christ after his great sufferings; and if it be a ceremony to us, it is a ceremony to all other creatures, which you deny, the same being enjoined to all. And if, as you say, many creatures come not within compass of Religious worship, it is plain Religious worship is not simply here enjoined; But if you give the ceremonies, and not the substance, it is not properly Religious worship; And so this bowing is but a mocking of Christ; and if it be ceremony to us and not to other creatures, as you affirmed; I pray, what is it to Devils and Reprobates? if it be not a ceremony to them it is substantial, it must be one of them, and what will follow hence? Those to whom Christ is a destroyer must perform the substance; and you that say you bow, because of salvation, give but a ceremony. You be thankful pieces indeed for such a great mercy, that the Devils shall do more for Damnation, than you for salvation.  
To my fourth reason, whereas I say, the Text truly understood enjoins the bowing to all times and places, continually, but the other makes it to be done but one day of the week ordinarily; and then also but now and then. In your answer there is a manifest contradiction, for first you say, The Text enjoins it not to all times and places, which indeed is no better than blasphemy, and then you presently say the whole man ought ever to submit to Christ: how can this agree together? For if this continual submission be grounded upon the Text, than I pray, how do you limit it the mention of the name Jesus, when also no mention of the Name doth bind you to bow, but on Lord's days? I would fain know of you whether Devils by the Text be not always subject to Christ, or only then when Jesus is named. If their subjection be always to be done; then it is false to tie it to the name only. If at the name only, as it must be so, seeing you apply it so to us, see then what will necessarily follow. If the Devils be not always subject to Christ by this Text, than hath not Christ authority and power over them continually; for Christ's authority, and the Creatures subjection are relatives. It will follow then that so long as they be not subject, they be Lords. There is but one Lord, and Christ is he; but Satan strives to be Lord, and certainly, if Christ should ever cease to be Lord, Satan gains it; and as long as he is not in subjection he is Lord: he must be Lord or in subjection, he cannot be nothing at all, and in no relation; see then the whole consequence of this Doctrine; the devil shall be Lord all the week, and he shall not need to bow but the Lord's days, for then only we are bound to bow say they, (except they will have the devils to do more service than we) but we need not then till Jesus be named. So it follows that Satan shall be Lord all our time, and Christ shall be Lord but two or three minutes in a week, is not this sound Doctrine? and than the Devils must be tied to come to Church; for if they be not tied they are fools to come thither; to be subject with horror, when they might be at their own liberty; or else they must set up a Church of their own, and choose a Priest to say Service; or else upon these men's grounds how shall they ever be subject at all? For if the duty of the Text, as these men say, be not seasonable but in times of devotion, then are not Devils capable of subjection at all, except they will make them religious and devout; well then, if the Devils must bow, but when these men do; it will follow that when Satan is not overruled he will rule; when he is not in subjection, he will command; no marvel then if these men generally live such scandalous lives, for would not you have their lives agree with their doctrine? They teach it, they make Satan Lord over them, to rule them all the week; but Christ shall be their Lord but two or three minutes on the Lord's day; yea they teach this doctrine in respect of themselves, for if the ●…owing of the knee, let them take soul-knees too if they will, be limited to the naming of Jesus, then by this Text they are not bound to bow either body or soul at any other time besides. Christ indeed should be a proper King by this Doctrine to have command of his subjects a fit or two on the Lord's day, and all their time else to be at their own command, and at the command of his utter enemy.  
To my fift proof, when I say, this doctrine depriveth Christ of his true subjects, and forceth upon him the members of Antichrist, you answer how can this be? can any pluck his out of his hands? No Sir, it cannot be, but you teach it, for seeing you damn all to hell, that will not observe your command; by this means you damn to hell the French Churches, the Scotish, the netherlands Churches, and all other Churches and Persons whatsoever that obey you not: and I hope Sir, Churches that must be damned are not true Churches; and hellhounds are not Christ's faithful subjects: yea you will have none to be saved but your own faction: But I suppose that if some Pagan should converse a while in England, and should see the deportment of these Cringers, that pretend they practise it for conscience sake, and should compare them with those that for conscience sake refuse it, that like the American savage, whom a friar came to instruct at his death, if he should be told that these cringers go to heaven, and the other to hell, would choose to go to hell with these, then to heaven with those cringers.  
That none should write against your opinion till T. C. I suppose you mean Mr. Cartright, is extremely false.  
That ancient and modern Divines agree with you it becomes none but Mr. Barton, and such as he is, to affirm: You cannot bring any one Orthodox Father so to understand the Text. And for modern Divines, generally all Expositors that are Protestants write against you: Bishop Andrew's was the first Protestant Divine that ever made it a duty of the text, and the best learned and pious in England have been and are generally against it. And though perhaps some very learned men might through the iniquity of the times yield to the practice of it, yet I suppose few in their judgement held it by the Text.  
To my last reason, that it depriveth Christ of his Glory at the day of judgement; seeing, first, it puts no difference between Christ's kingdom inchoate, and made perfect. And secondly, because it will make the full subjection of every creature to consist only in a ceremony distinct from a substantial duty as Doctor Page calls it, and to be the sole performance at that day, when Christ shall come to be fully glorified by all his creatures; You say nothing to it but what you say elsewhere, and I say again, so to hold is flat blasphemy, therefore you have more cause to recant for delivering such doctrine, than I for censuring it, as it justly deserves; I was never against external reverence, but not limited at the Name Jesus.   

SECT. XIII.  
HEre I say that it is not probable that it is a duty of the Text, seeing it is not typified or prophesied in the old Testament; You have not disproved my Antecedent: to say that a truth may be in analogy though not typified, or prophesied, is nothing to the Question, except you mean signified to come to pass by the analogy. Those places, Act. 3. 3. 8. and Act. 10. 43. speak of what should come to pass in Christ; that of Matth. 5. 18. speaks of jots and titles, and I showed you, that small matters were foretold in Christ: This should have been much more, if it had been the honour of Christ's kingdom. But at length you will find it in Type and prophecy, but that in Gen. 37. 9 is nothing to your purpose, except you could prove that Joseph's brethren bowed to their brother's name: neither that of Exod. 17. 11. except you can prove that Moses bowed to the Name Joshuah. Tertullian doth not speak of the bare literal Name. Those Scriptures which you bring, as Exod. 3. 15. Psal. 75. 1. Psal. 111. 9 isaiah 45. 23. are to no purpose, for because God's name is Jehovah, his name is near, his name is holy, all knees must bow to Jehovah, that is, to God himself, therefore that all knees must bow at or to the Name Jesus is a ridiculous inconsequent.   

EECT. XIIII.  
HEre I say that if this bowing were a necessary command of God, it is probable that there would be some examples for it, but there are none. Those places that I have brought for my consequent are weighty; for they concern examples of faith, and the effects and fruits thereof in obedience; there be examples enough in Scripture of all necessary duties; and though there is no example precisely of putting off the hat, yet there is of external reverence in God's house, which you have sufficiently proved to my hand, and you and your friends hold any external reverence sufficient at the Name Jesus, as putting off the hat, bowing down the body in stead of the knee, but you cannot bring any example of any external reverence whatsoever, given at the mention of the Name Jesus. That of Matth. 17. 6. though it concern not the Question was no worship properly, 
Calvin in loc.  but an infirmity of fear. That which you speak of the sense of the Name makes not for you; for our Question is about the name, and I am sure you never bow to the sense without the Name. It is strange that if this were a duty by this Text never before practised, that it should have no example, or show of example to confirm it.  
I have done with the chief Arguments, and now I shall labour to be brief.   

SECT. XV.  
AS for your proud scorn, I think I have made better use of my reading than yourself, who wrest it to the destruction of yourself and others. The Fathers generally understand Name here for the Name of God, or the only begotten Son of God, by your own confession, therefore they are against you. But you sophistically confound these names with the Name Jesus, as if they were all one; if so, why do you prefer the Name Jesus above God? Dr. Page his Query is answered in Sect. 8.  
Zanchy understands not Name here for Jesus; therefore you produce him subtly to deceive the Reader.  
Of all the ancients within the first 700. years, none but Origen, who is no Orthodox Father understands Name above every Name for the Name Jesus, 
See Willet on Rom. 14 Contro. 9  yet you produce him not, to prefer it above Divine Names, yet he on Rom. 14. 11. doth overthrow your literal bowing. Because I say from Jerome, that the Church fulfils this Text, by praying to the Father in the Name of Christ: you say I must infer that all creatures must do so too, but you trifle, for the material bowing is subjection, which is the same to all, but the form and manner of it differs according to the different state of the creature. I do not understand the material bowing so, as you absurdly understand it of a religious ceremony. You have not made good what I desired, those Fathers which you bring in your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. do but set down the words of the Text, none speaks of coroporall bowing at the Name Jesus mentioned.   

SECT. XVI.  
YOu have such a faculty in striving against the truth, that you care not what you say in defence of error. Yourself, and all your friends understand the Text of the sole bowing at the Name Jesus, which ordinary practice confirms, therefore no other Names may be bowed to, without profaning the name Jesus, for if all names may be indifferently bowed to, to what purpose was this Text? for then God should mock his son, in advancing him to an honour which he had before. This in effect I said, upon which the whole Section depends; Therefore till you answer this, (which you have not done) whatsoever you babble in this Section vanisheth.   

SECT. XVII.  
THe Bishops generally did not give it in charge in Visitation-Articles, before this Archbishop's time, how then could the Churchwardens present it? and in my time it was generally neglected in the university; worthy men in our Church wrote against it in their printed allowed works, what sincerity was this to let these things alone, if it be a duty of the Text, and to press the other ceremonies? The tale you lay to my charge is not so.   

SECT. XVIII.  
I Wrong not Doctor Page, for as he states the question uncertainly, though he ground it on the Text, 
Justific. of bowing, pag. 18. & alibi.  so I appeal to any reader that shall diligently peruse him, whether he be not content that it be held a thing indifferent. As for myself, I confess that in former times I held it indifferent, so other divine names may have a like respect, but I never held it any way from the Text.    

PART II.  
The first Section is cleared in Part 1. Section 4. and 8.  

SECT. II.  
HEre I will not spend Paper, for though you profess to discuss the truth uprightly, yet the intelligent Reader cannot but mistrust that you have gone mainly both against your science and conscience, you prove nothing from Scripture, nor answer the Scriptures I have brought, but depart not only from the judgement of your own Authors in the Antecedent, as Zanchy, &c. but also from the Question; for you confound the Name Jesus with the Person: and whereas I reason a dicto secundum quid, speaking of names considered in Christ; you reason ad dictum simpliciter, to those names considered in themselves; the difference between you and me here is this, whether Christ suffered most in his name Jesus, by which he was commonly called, or his glorious titles, God, son of God, &c. which were concealed, and decried. You say in the name Jesus, I say in the other Names, because in respect of these he suffered poenam damni, & sensus, which in respect of the Name Jesus he did not. I will illustrate this by this familiar instance. Thomas Barton for his demerits is now decried Parson of Westminston, yet the Parson of Westminston in simplici termino suffers not, but I fear me the Parson of Westminston considered in Master Barton suffers: I would fain know of you Master Barton, where you complain most, of your Name Thomas, or of being decried Parson of Westminston; I believe it would more cheer you to be cried up again Parson of Westminston, than to have your name declared Thomas, which was never denied you: Let the judicious Reader apply this.   

SECT. III.  
HEre I say that this reason, that we must bow at the Name Jesus, because it signifieth a Saviour, is not grounded on the Text. You answer you are sorry that obedience will not be, except a reason be given. Sir, I desire to give obedience to any certain command, though I have no reason, but if any shall affirm that God commands upon a reason, I desire a proof of this reason from the word. But you refer me to your {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 18. where you say it is at large, that the Name Jesus is above all names, to God, to us, which you have from Bishop Andrew's: and then you add of your own, that it is above all in itself.  
It is above all to God you say, because no other Name had us men, and our salvation in it. But I hope Sir, that our Salvation is not in the literal name: but what is this to the Text; when name there is of larger extent, then concerning us men only? I pray Sir, is Jesus more to God than Jehovah, which denotes his glorious excellency in himself, his life, and essence? is our Salvation more to God than these? Christ indeed laid down for us the life of man in becoming our Saviour, but not the life of God. The life of God restored the life of man.  
To us you say it is above all, because of the great work of salvation wrought for us; but it is false, for God's glory, and life should be dearer to us than our own benefit. You be like an unnatural child, that so he can have the inheritance he cares not so much for his father's life. But what made Christ a Saviour, and his death so meritorious, but because he was Jehovah? What draws out our salvation to all eternity, but because he is Jehovah? If God should cease to be Jehovah, our Salvation would come to an end. 
Quicquid efficit tale, idest magis tale.  Here I will bring your own witness, 
* De natura dei c. 13. p. 40.  Zanchy, against you. Quid hoc nominis {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} usu praestantius, &c. what is more excellent than this use of the Name Jehovah? what can be imagined, or invented more available for our salvation, and the comfort of our souls?  
In that you say that Jesus in itself is above the Name of God, 
If the Name be above God, then surely the person must be above God.  because you prove nothing from Scripture, but exceed in blasphemy all that ever wrote before you, I will not defile myself with such stuff: only this I say, that it is infinitely absurd to hold, that any work of God, yea take all his works together, can be greater than God's life; for if he should demolish all his works, he could work again, but if he should cease to be, he can work no more. Therefore to affirm that to profane the Name Jesus is a greater sin than to profane the Name God, is but a blasphemous assertion of a Popish Author owned by his pupil Barton.  
As for my Argument, if the Name Jesus be above every Name of God, it will make the second Person above the other Persons, because his main answer is his conceit without proof that Jesus is the essential name of God, and made proper by dispensation, it being disproved Part 1. Sect. 9 I leave it, only this I will I say of it, if the other Persons have made the name of the essence proper▪ it will follow that they have made the essence itself proper, than none should be God, but the second Person only; for as Names are, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 15.  saith he, so are the virtues to be esteemed.  
As for Bishop Andrew's as he is to be understood, he plainly contradicts himself, 
Sermon Phil. 2.  and I pray how can he affirm, that the Person of Christ is gone from us; when in the same place he saith, that Christ's body and soul, and those not without his Deity, are really present in the Sacrament? The person of Christ may be said to live, and dwell among his Saints though not personally, yet in and through his Spirit, per {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}.  
Last of all, because I thus reply to the answer of those which say that Jesus is the Name of the three Persons, and so by bowing at this Name they honour all alike; that if Jesus be the Name of the three Persons, then cannot it be the Name above every Name in the Text as they say, because that name is only proper to the second Person; because he only was incarnate, and Mediator, and God gave him that name after his humiliation. You not knowing how to shuffle up a fair answer, in a scurrilous way, lay Arianism to my charge, and tell me that I am put to a shift, and that pitifully, because say you by this reply I shake down my own pillar, Part 1. Sect. 1. for so I must deny (you say) what I there affirmed, that supereminent power and glory is the Name above every Name, because the three Persons have supereminent power and glory, or else I must affirm that the Name Jesus is proper to the second Person by dispensation, as also in my own Tenet, supereminent power and glory. But Sir it is you that shift and not I, for supereminent power and glory, which is essential and so common to every person in Trinity, is not here the Name above every Name, but that supereminent power and glory, which is the advancement, and honour of Christ Mediator, God and Man. It is impossible that the essential Name of God can be made proper, unless the essence itself be made proper. Therefore your conceit of a propriety by dispensation is frivolous. If the Name Jesus be (as you say) essential, it cannot be proper to the second Person; and if proper, it cannot be essential. The Name above every Name, which I have proved is supereminent power and glory, is given to Christ as mediator, and therefore it is not essential in him as a Person of the trinity; therefore my pillar stands as firm as ever it did, and you show yourself but a trifler in this Reply.   

SECT. IV.  
HEre you do uncharitably wrest my words, for I do not say, that no Name hath any excellency for signification sake, or that the Name Jesus hath no pre-eminence at all for the sense of it, but that it is not above every Name in the Text: and therefore to be bowed to because it signifieth a Saviour.  
I say it again, disprove it if you can. By this reason I said we should rather bow at the Name Christ, which doth more particularly, and expressly denote our salvation than the Name Jesus, as Vrsin declares; denoting his three offices by which he saves us; You answer Christ is not a Name but title of honour, but if it be not a Name I know not how to judge of things, he being more often called by that Name since the Ascension than Jesus. But being a title of honour, titles of honour are more excellent than proper Names. But see how this Sophister immediately forgets himself, for presently he calls it the Name of Christ's humanity; then belike the title of the humanity is a title of honour, and Jesus the title of the Deity, 
This is Bishop Andrew's his reason.  a poor and humble name, as he elsewhere calls ●. But what is his reason that Christ is the name of the humanity? viz. because it signifieth anointed, and God cannot be anointed; true, God in his essence simply considered cannot be anointed. But Christ God and Man was anointed to be our mediator, as anointing signifieth his designation to that office; This I said, that if the sense of our salvation should make us bow, the sense of it, and the manner how it is wrought is more clearly set out to us in the Name Christ than Jesus, which Name I affirm doth also more fully set out the Person: for Jesus denotes only a Saviour, but Christ showeth who and what he is, viz. the promised Messiah, a Priest, a Prophet, and King: Yea it doth more properly denote the Person, for it denotes none but he, but Jesus may denote some body else.   

SECT. V.  
What is said here, is sufficiently answered in Part 1. Sect. 1. & 8. Here he wresteth my words, for when I say the Name Jesus concerns the elect only, he saith I say the bowing concerns the Elect only.  
Doctor Page his answer is nothing to the purpose, for if the Devils bow only because Jesus is a Saviour to others, then do they not bow by a reason proper to themselves, which is contrary to the Text, for the reason there is common to all, viz. because Christ hath dominion and power over all, which is so plain that you are impudent to deny it.  
Though all shall not fare alike at the day of judgement, yet shall all appear alike: so the subjection materially is the same to all, though formally it differ.   

SECT. VI.  
HEre I say, to bow at the Name Jesus only, which Name signifieth our Saviour, and not at Jehovah, which signifieth God's essential glory, is a preferring our salvation above God's glory, therefore it is a wicked Tenet. You first deny the Antecedent, and say your bowing is specified to be to the glory of the Father, but you must first prove it from the Text. Then you say we are Simonians, Saturnians, if we think to serve God for nothing: O horrible blasphemy is Jesus all, and Jehovah nothing? Is God to us something, and God in his glorious nature nothing? is it all to serve God for ourselves, and nothing to serve him for himself? When I allege Deut. 28. 58. to prove that Jehovah is God's glorious name, you absurdly wrest me contrary to my meaning, that I should say we must serve God more for fear than love, which is nothing agreeable to my words.  
Again you impudently wrong me, in laying to my charge that I make Jesus and Jehovah not the same God, it is yourself that do it, in making Jesus greater than Jehovah, I only distinguish the names, (which you here confound for your own ends) and show that Jesus showeth what God is to us; Jehovah, what he is in himself; therefore to worship him as Jesus, and not as Jehovah, 
See Sect. 3.  is abominable. There is nothing else worth replying to, being cleared elsewhere; only I think good to vindicate myself from one clamorous imputation.  
When I say, if we must bow only in respect of salvation, Devils, and Reprobates should be more sincere in their service than we, who must bow to Christ as he is their Lord, but we only by the opinion of these men as he is our Saviour; here he blesseth himself as if some spirit appeared before him. But we will see, whether we can allay this spirit, or lay him in his right place. He and his friends understand the proper duty of the Text in itself considered to be a Religious ceremony to be performed in holy times, 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. p. 53, 54.  and places. And himself holds that all Angels and men, just and unjust, are bound to perform voluntary obedience to glory. If the Devils there be so bound, if they perform religious acts, and observe holy times (for the bowing materially is the same for all) gratis, when they can look for nothing but damnation; to require good for evil being a note of perfection, much more to requite good for so great an evil as utter destruction: they should attain to an unmatchable perfection. Therefore Sir weep not for me, but for yourself, it is your own doctrine, I would your hand might tremble in mercy, and your eyes drop for the monstrous blasphemies which you have let fall in your book.   

SECT. VII.  
HEre I say that Doctor Page his reason is not good, that we should bow at the Name Jesus, because above all other Names it minds us of Christ's death. First, I denied the antecedent, affirming that many called God their Saviour in the old Testament, yet few supposed that God should die, but you say very few, which I say not, I deny not that it was known, but it was not commonly and clearly known, as appears by Christ's Disciples, who though they called him Jesus, yet would hardly be persuaded that redemption should be by his blood, though they were often told of it, Joh. 20. 9 Therefore Jesus is not the chiefest name signifying death; but the Name Christ is rather, because it denotes him to be a Priest, and such a Priest, that did also shed his own blood, and therefore I say again, God could have been a Jesus if he had would, without becoming a Priest, he could not indeed, because he would not, but he never could have been a Priest unless he had been a Jesus. You have not overthrown the consequent, for first, how have you proved by the Scriptures that the Name of Christ's death is the Name of his Glory? Secondly, I go not against the order of the Text, when I say the Name above every Name leads us to Christ's glory, and not to his sufferings. I deny not that God in the Text proceeds from humility to glory, yet is it absurd to confound Christ's humiliation with his exaltation; and the Name of the one with the Name of the other; The Name Jesus looks to hell saith Doctor Page, but we must look for Christ in heaven. Thirdly, neither have I changed the Question, but it is you rather; for do you bow only to the Name, because you say (but prove it not) that it is a suffering Name? do you not bow also to the sense of the Name, because it signifieth salvation by dying? This you stand upon continually, therefore the ignorantia elenchi is in yourself. 
Quicquid convenit tali quatenus tali, convenit omni tali.  My marginal note stands firm against you; for seeing you say you bow in the sense of the Name Jesus, the sense of the Name is as well conveyed to the understanding by sight as by hearing: yourself make it all one as I have noted, Part 1. Sect. 8.   

SECT. VIII.  
HEre I affirm, that it is no good reason to bow at the Name Jesus because the fullness of the godhead dwells in Christ bodily, Col. 2. 9 That which you reply to the denial of the consequence is nothing, but what hath been sufficiently cleared before. And that which you allege from Tertullian is against you. For if the Names Jesus and Christ do one of them imply the other, why do you make such a difference? though it be your direct opinion by the humanity to climb up to the glorious trinity, which I deny not; yet this will not prove the consequence: and I verily believe, that God will accept our worship in, and by the Name Christ, as well as Jesus; I say it is no Reason to affirm that we should bow at the Name Jesus rather than Christ, because some say, that Jesus is the Name of the Person, Christ of the office, because Christ by his office brings us the Father.  
Jesus doth denote his office as well as his Person, though more summarily his office; Christ denotes his Person as well as his office, though more clearly his office then the Name Jesus doth; yea it denotes his person more properly and certainly then the name Jesus, which denotes some body else, but Christ none but he. There is nothing else worth answering, only this I stand still to justify, that upon the foregoing reason if we must bow to the Father at the mention of the Name Jesus only, we must as well pray to the Father by mentioning of that Name only; neither have you disproved it, for though Prayer be one duty and bowing another, yet are they both parts of worship, and lip-prayer is no more substantial than outward bowing, the excellency of both is in the heart.  
For the conclusive Argument, the heads are but barely denied without proof, and what I affirmed is sufficiently justified in the premises, and confirmed in this reply, and so I leave it. But Sir I must tell you, that whereas you lay to my charge that I had others' assistance in my book; It is false, I am not beholding to any for two words, either in informing or reforming otherwise than what light I have demonstrated to have received from such Authors as I have read, neither have I desired any assistance in this reply; Therefore none of my brethren are to share with me in any infirmity whatsoever in either Tract.    

An Advertisement to Master Barton.  
IF Master Barton do ever intend to make another answer, I desire thus much of him; that he reconcile those contradictions that I have noted in his infallible witness Doctor Page, and in himself, and especially he must clear Section 4. Part 1. where he hath shamefully wrested Scriptures to maintain his error; he must bring plain Scriptures▪ to show that In the name doth anywhere signify at the mention of the Name in that sense as he takes it in Phil. 2. 9 viz. to be a sign how to know when to do something, or to perform some worship. And above all he must clear the eighth Section of the first part, and prove by evident Scriptures (for those Scriptures which he hath brought he hath fearfully abused) so far forth as to leave it without doubt, (seeing he makes it a point of Faith and Salvation,) that bowing at the Name Jesus is the bowing to be performed at the day of Judgement by all rational creatures, and to be done by the Saints to all perpetuity after the day of judgement, and answer my Reasons, and Scriptures to the contrary. When he hath done this I will write again, and show what my opinion is; If this be not done, all that he hath written first and last in the question by his own confession is nothing worth; and I resolve never to trouble my more necessary studies with any more replies; for I acknowledge all that is besides God's word, be there never so much show of learning, to be no better than chaff and stubble, dung and excrements. And if he or any one else for him shall truly perform what I here require of him, I will promise him a privilege beyond other men, he shall be fed with Pheasants milk.  
FINIS.   

Errata.  
PAge 3. l. 26 in the Margin blot out 6. p. 5. l. 16. read scope of the Text, p. 6. l. 36 r. Bishop Babington, p. 7. l. 17. r here, p. 9 l. 7 r. Christ, l. 21. r. two or three Authors, p. 10. l. 3. r. commonly called by, l. 27 and 26 r. declaration of the Name Jesus as you affirm, p. 12. l. 35. r. or expressly, p 13. l 26. put out (but) l. 28. r. Ephes. 1. 21. l. 37. r. increated, p. 19 l. 9 r. virtues, p. 21. l. 5. r. Nomen capitur pro professione saith Calvin on that place, l. 33. r. you produce, p. 23. l. 34. in the Margin r. de tribus, p. 25. l. 8. r. though perhaps he might, hold it indifferent at the time, p. 26. l 10. r. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, in Heb. 1. 2. p. 26. l. 28. r. here in degree, p. 27. l. 10. r. isaiah 8. 20 and Heb. 11. 1. p. 27. l. 36. put out (first) p. 33. 33. r. Rev 14. 1. l. 36. r. for ever in heaven, p. 35. l 28. r. are but one, p. 36. l. 14▪ in the Margin r. loco 1. de Deo, p. 37. l 2. r. cavillers, l. 16. r argument, p. 41. l. 23. r. 1 Cor. 11. 4 p. 43. l. 23. r. ceremony, l 26 r affirm, p 46. l 19 r. Act. 3. 18.  
In Part 1 Section 5. p. 24. l. 18. supply this, what I have said of power and glory see Part 1 Sect. 1. p. 13. and part 2 Sect. 3. p. 54. And it is you, and not I, that deny him to be Jesus, till the resurrection, for by your exposition you say the Name was then given him, than it will follow expressly that the office was then given him.