The lawlesse kneelesse schismaticall Puritan. Or A confutation of the author of an appendix, concerning bowing at the name of Iesus. Written by Giles Widdowes rector of St Martins Church in Oxford, and late fellow of Oriell Colledge

Author: Widdowes, Giles, 1558?-1645.1630

THE LAWLESSE KNEELESSE SCHISMATICALL PƲRITAN.

OR A CONFVTATION OF THE AVTHOR OF AN APPENDIX, concerning bowing at the name of Iesus.

WRITTEN By GILES WIDDOWES Rector of S ^t MARTINS Church in Oxford, and late fellow of Oriell Colledge.

1 COR. 14. 37. If any man thinke himselfe to be a Prophet, or spirituall, let him acknowledge, that the things, that I write vnto you are the commandements of the Lord.

Printed at Oxford for the Author. 1631.

[Page]

TO MY MVCH HONOVRED PATRON ENDYMION PORTER Esquire, and one of his Maiesties Bed-chamber, salvation, long life & happinesse in the Lord Iesus.

SIR

YOVR noble intents, and ancient Reall fauours towards me, ought to be honoured with millions of thanks. And so thankfull I am, as tis possible for me, so farre beneath your worth in termes of requitall. I here present you with the first fruits of my Autumne-vintage, with the best grape, that ever was pressed into wine. The vine, wheron it grows, is the true vine: and the cup of saluation is the benefit, which it [Page] brings to the worthy receauer. This makes glad the heart of man, it cheares vp the drooping soule, recreats the spirits, quickeneth the senses, and raiseth vp the whole man to the highest pitch of happines. And now giue me leaue, plainely to commend vnto you the subiect it selfe, or rather the Lord, and Master of my ensuing labours, which is this vine, this grape, and this wine, soprecious, so excellent, so everlastingly sauing. Tis Iesus the Author of saluation, that's his name aboue all names: at the mention whereof S. Bernard in his 15. sermon on the Canticles was rapt into admiration, S ^t Hierome, and other of the Fathers, and ancient Christians of the Primitiue Church into amazement, and adoration. And well they might, for there is none other meanes vnder heauen to attaine to salvation: this saues from the strength of death, from the pit of hell, from the tyranny of the Devill. But being dishonoured by a disgracefull pen, I am not asham'd to confesse, that Iesus is the Lord in the despight of his enemies, with heart, and knee, and pen: and am likewise bold to commend this Apologetique, or schole-defence of mine to your courteous acceptance, in token of my oblig'd thankfullnes. And thus, till God shall adde a greater blessing to my studies, now, and ever I rest,

Yours at my hearty praiers, GILES WIDDOWES.

[Page 1]

To the True Protestant Reader.

A Confused Ropsody of vaine, Idle conceipts: this is the Authors of the Appendix Benevolence, wherewith he hath rewarded me, for writing the Shismatical Puritan. I aimde at the conformity of the Factious Brethren, that Gods name might bee glorified by our Church through the godly practice of Christian vnity. I assure M ^r Prinne, If he bee the Author: that Causidicants, should be better Subiects to God, and to his Immediate Vicegerēt in these Churches, the King, than to be Prime defenders of Breaking the peace of Orthodoxe Reformed Religion. But 'tis now, as our B. Lord and Sauiour hath prophecied, There must be offences. Math. 18 ^th, but woe vnto the man, by whom they Come. Ver. 7. And there must be heresies, that they with are approoued; may be knowne. 1. Cor. 11, 19. There shalbe false Teachers, which shall priuily bring in damnable Heresies, denying the Lord, that bought them. 2. Pet. 2. 1. There must be offences, heresies, false Teachers. There must be, and are false Teachers. But yet here is one comfort in so great a misery: The False Teachers are not more learned, than M ^r Ignoramus, a young scholler, a stranger to Metaphysicall Diuinitie.

[Page 2]

For his bold Censure of my Schismatical Puritan, I shall quickly prooue, that therein he proou'd himselfe to be very vnlearned. Or els without the helpe of a Conventicle he might haue giuen a better Censure. For the Preface, the Identity of a Puritan, that is not confus'd: but an infallible, and a perspicuous knowledge concerning the Schismatique so that a man may but read, and know, what kind of Puritan I vnderstand. For the Equivocates; the good, and euill Puritan, being distinguished, The Equiuocant, the Puritan, hath lost his amazing ambiguity; and then there is noe

Pulchrum digito monstrari, & dicier Hic est.

Noe man will admire him for an holy, godly, and religious Professor. The boyes in the streete may poynt with their finger, which is the Honest, and which is the dissembling Puritan. Secondly, my definition of a fallacious Puritan is not confus'd, but so perfect, so distinct, so true, so intelligible, as an Essentiall definition ought to be. There is the Genus Quid, What a Puritan is? A Protestant. There is the essentialis differentia Qualis, what manner a Protestant, a Puritan is? A Non-conformist. Thirdly the ten kinds of Puritans: this diuision is essentiall: For there are ten seuerall Puritanieties, by which one kind of Puritan distinctly differs from an other, as you may read in my Preface. And my Sermon is not confus'd: 1. The Command: 2. The things Commanded: 3. The obseruing of the things Commanded: 4. The manner How, are without ambiguity, according to the rules of explication, and confirmation. Thus my booke is not confus'd And vaine, and Idle it is not, For the end thereof is necessary: viz: The Reformation of non-Conformists to the glory of God, and Preservation of his Church. This I intended though M ^r Prinne doth shut his eies, and will not see a truth manifestly visible. And a Rapsodie tis none, no song: no composure of a song: no singing of a song. And I would to God, that there were noe canting tunes among the Factious. The truth is, that the Essentialls Essentiats &c. and their modalities haue confoumded the fanatique Professor, and overthrowen [Page 3] his Chaire: and therefore he complaines of that confusion; yet being vnwilling to forsake a Bafling Profession; to the Eie of the world He brags, that my Schismatical Puritan is vaine, and idle.

It seemes that the Professor will neuer reforme: or els why is a book written against Bowing at the name of Iesus: an Appendix, a leane too, a similitude of the Howse buylt vpon the sands: Confus'd, vaine, and Idle stuffe. Ile assure you, that this is very Confus'd. For whereas M ^r Prinne should first haue distinguish'd the name Iesus to have begotten infallible knowledge in the Reader: He contrarily striues to teach, that the name Iesus is so ambiguos that sometimes tis not vnderstood. It is strange that a Pretender to learning should rather teach stumbling at a word, to cause confusion then encourage seekers after actuall knowledg to diue into the profound instructions of the wise: or else the distinction of the Right reverend, and learned Bp. Andrewes concerning the name Iesus might haue satisfied any rationall capacity.

Secondly M ^r. Prinne is not confus'd only at handling the name Iesus, but in his materia Circa quam: in the substance of his booke. For he hath no explication of dutie towards Iesus, which he ought to haue had, if he will proue, ad partes, that Bowing at the name of Iesus is no duty of the text, and he hath no explication of the severall kinds of Ceremonies, which he ought to haue had for his private friends sake, that they might vnderstand, how that no ceremony is a duty of the text. Certainely a necessary an vniuersall ceremony is a duty of the text; as a thing considered, bowing at the name of Iesus is both a dutie, and Ceremony; sed formaliter, for seuerall respects: as it tis a ceremony, tis not a duty; as tis a dutie tis non ceremony, as you shall learne hereafter.

He is not only confus'd in handling the name Iesus, and in the substance of Appendix, but also in his Method. Let an vnderstanding man obserue his manner of dispute, and hee cannot but affirme that he is altogether vnworthy to teach, [Page 4] or to contradict the Learned, and Conforming Professors of of our Church. His method is neither essentiall, nor demonstratiue, and then it's not necessary. Ti's fit that it be knowne, what it is. It is a Delemma, whose two generall parts are grosse mistaks. First he chargeth Bishop Andrewes, Mr. Adams, the Sorbonists, and Rhemists, that they teach, that bowing at the name of Iesus is nothing els but a duty of the text The opposition of the 2 parts doth warrāt me, thus to write. Then He saith that Zanchius Mr Hooker, Dr. Boyes, and Mr. Widdowes, defend this assertion, that bowing at the name of Iesus is but an indifferent, innocent, harmeles Ceremony: yet all these Bishop Andrewes &c. Zanchius &c. doe teach, that bowing at the name of Iesus is both a duty and Ceremony, which, how this can be, he is not able to vnderstand.

He is so ignorant that he cannot tell whether all things haue their perculiar times. Hence it is, that he confounds the time of divine seruice with the time of swearing, and blaspheming with any sinfull time, when Iesus is named. He hath not learned the difference betweene a categoricall, and an exclusiue sense, and therefoer he is not a sham'd to inferre; because the Councell of Basil enjoyned Canonicall persons to bowe at the name of Iesus: therefore only they did bowe at the name of Iesus. He is so wilfull in his opinion, that he denies (in the despight of the Councell of Nice, and Ephesus, that either Primitiue Church; or any Reformed Church ought to bowe at the name of Iesus.

He perceiues not: that in or at the time, when Iesus is named every knee shall bow, are promiseuosly read. So it seemes that he is not a Grammarian. Notwithstanding all this ignorāce he so earnestly disputs, as if he would talke him selfe out of breath, or else what meanes his zealous Tautologie? The argument of Souereignty is disputed six times at handling the meaneing of the text. The argument of preferring one name of Iesus before another is repeated 8 times six times in the third question twise in the fourth. The Arg of [Page 5] bowing only to the name Iesus and not to the persō is disputed six times. The argument of preferring one person of the deity before the other is twise disputed. The argument that Iesus is the name only of Incarnatiō &c. is disputed 5 times. That Iesus is not Iesus to the Deuils &c. is disputed at rhe second and third Question. That bowing is only Metaphoricall is disputed foure times. That Lord is the name aboue every name disputed thrise.

The metaphoricall sence of bowing he hath separated from the letter of of the text, and makes that to be the only manner of bowing at the name of Iesus. Philip. 2. 10. But he must Vnderstand, that there is a reall bowing, and more morall, then to be only metaphoricall, as it appeares at the end of his arguments answear'd concerning the meaning of the text: where he hath confounded an exclusiue, with a compar'd sence. Thus: bowing at the last day &c. is the only principall, and therefore t' is the only bowing at the name of Iesus: hence he hath falsified 15. scriptures. many primitiue fathers & others: the nūber of them is but fourescore Istos modos dicēdi: Per se: & per accidēs those naturall, & accidentall manner of speeches he confounds. Thus: some doe abuse Bowing at the name of Iesus, as papists, & Ignorant Protestants: Therefore tis no harmeles ceremony. And he is so decent, so trimme in his arguments cōcerning the decency of bowing, that he confounds, Coordination, and Subordination with contrarie opposition. Thus: Bowing with the heart, and bowing with the knee (which are subordinate) doe differ, therefore they are so contrary, as two contrary masters. To read, & bow; to heare, and bow &c, are Coordinate duties: yet these with him are so contrarie, as that they cannot be done together without confusion. Now behold the strang learning of a monstrous learned Immethodist. Is he not rare for dispurations being so ignorant of modalities? Is he not excellent to teach our Chutch being so braue a Babe in vnderstanding?

Againe his Appendix is vaine, and Idle. For in what the [Page 6] holy Ghost doth seriously cōmend Iesus, that he neglects to remember. The Holy Ghosts reason, why all knees shall bow at the name of Iesus is: because Iesus tooke on him our nature, and then did so humbly demeane himselfe, that he died the death of the Crosse to saue his Enemies Ro. 5. 8. For this cause God honored Iesus so much, that he commands every knee to bow at his name. This is the scope of the text: and then is not Mr. Prinne, vaine, and idle in his conceipt, to suppose argumenrs, to contradict the good & iust meaning of the Holy Ghost: who is that True teacher, that God is the Iust rewarder of Iesus his the greatest Humility? Is it not vaine, and an idle conceipt, for to thinke better of Mr, Prinns arguments, to cause no Bowing at Iesus his name. then of the Holy Ghosts dictate, which is Iesus his merit revealed to be, and Gods Exaltation of Iesus the causes, why every knee shall bow at the name of Iesus. It is vaine and idle to fight against God: this is the opinion of Gamaliel a D ^r. of the law Act. 5. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. yet so vaine: and so idle, the younger Lawier is, that he would rather that his arguments should be beliued then the most credible truth of the Holy Ghost. Here is a strange oppositiō. A Christian may and ought verily to beleiue, that a man should not dare thus to dispute against the Holy Ghost.

What may be thought to be the cause that a man should grow so bold as to question the Holy Ghost for his doctrine? Certainely the mystery of iniquitie is working a new worke. Thus. If this name (Iesus) were disrespected, not so publiquely magnified as tis by the outward mans Bowing in, or at the time of divine service; then doubtles the Pure, Holy doctrine, and discipline of Elect Geneua shall be taught every where, to reforme this Church of Great Britaine. Doe but dishonour the head of the Church, and then regenerate Geneuaters shall gouerne the church, the King, the Realmes, nay Iesus himselfe. If obiection be made, that the most Reuerend Arch Bishop Cranmer, the Right Reuerend Bishop Ridley, Father Latimer, and other learned and [Page 7] Holy Martyrs were burned into ashes, for their constant profession of the doctrine and discipline of this reformed Church. Answeare must be made, that the Holy Mother Geneua, hath better doctrine, and discipline, then Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer ever knew. The doctrine and displine, of faithfull Geneua, are all substance: they are all gold. Oh if that Religion were here administred▪ euery presbyter shall be greater than a Monarch, and euery Iustice of peace aboue the Presbyter. And were not this an Excellent Reformation; when the Children of the Church, her Subordinate Members shalbe made such Transcendent Princes? A daring phantastique superstition! The Honour of Iesus exalted farre aboue all Heauens must be nullified, to make Schismaticall Puritans, Kings. Imperious Holines!

See a strange wonder: here is Lucifer-like pride in deede. The Deuills were cast out of Heauen Esay. 14. 14. for their pride, because they would not belieue in the Sonne of God, the Confirming Mediator of Angells: so the Schoolemen. And shall sly Professors then, be spared, seeing they will not Bow at the name of Iesus, which is a signe, that they doe not belieue in the Redeeming Sauiour?

If a Lawie [...] shall industriously write against the law, is it credible, that He is a Religious Obseruer, or a lawfull Professor of the law? Where is the good Conscience, the Necessary Subiect of the higher Powers mentioned at Rom. 13. 5? This stands at the Barre, and alleageth Gods Heauenly law: All knees shall bow at the name of Iesus: and tis baffled with an Outery. A Reformation. A Reformation. To bow at the name of Iesus is Superstition. To bow at the name of Iesus is Superstition. The good Conscience desireth a pacificall dispute, but the violence of aspiring Spirites, will not endure to feare the truth: therefore I desire the Christian Reader to obserue the plea of a good conscience. Thus: The tie of Gods law, and of the Kings lawes deriu'd from Gods, is Obligatory to binde all good Subiects vnto Obedience. First the text binds all Christians in faith to belieue, and in manners [Page 8] to Bow at the name of Iesus: which I haue proou'd at handling this Question. Whether Bowing at the name of Iesus, be a duty of the text? To second the text, our dread Souereigne Lord, the King, hath foure lawes, to humble his Subiects in faith, and manners; to Bow at the name of Iesus.

The first is the 20 ^th article of our Reformed faith, which is the Authority of the Church, to ordaine Rites, and Ceremonies whereof Bowing at the name of Iesus is one, though it be commanded by God originally, yet in application to reforme Non-conformists, tis the Churches Canon. Then by the Doctrine of our Reformed faith, Tis plaine, that we must bow at the name of Iesus. Because our Church-Authority hath decreed this Bowing (as you see) according to scripture. The second is the 34 Article, which is the Traditions of the Church, and bowing at the name of Iesus being vniversal is more necessary then those being particular and express'd thus; Whosoeuer through his priuate Iudgment, willingly and purposely doth openly breake the traditions of the Church &c. ought to be rebuked openly (that others may feare, to doe the like) as he, that offendeth against the Common order of the Church, and woundeth the Conscience of the weake Brethren. Then tis plaine by the testimony of Orthodoxe faith, that all must bow at the name of Iesus Sub paenâ publicae redargutionis vnder paine of open Rebuke. The third law is the 6 ^th Canon of our Church. The words are these. Whosoever shall here-after affirme, that the Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of England by law Established, are wicked, Anti-Christian, or superstitious, or such, as being Commanded by lawfull Authority, men who are Zealously, and godlily affected, may not with any good conscience approue them, vse them, or as occasion requireth, subscribe vnto them, let him be excommunicated ipso sacto, and not restored, vntill he repents, and publiquely revokes such his wicked errors. Then by vertue of this Canon, he that writes against Bowing at the name of Iesus, should be taught better manners. He should be deliuered to Satan by his Diocesan, for to tame his fleshly, and [Page 9] diuision-making faction in the Church, to teach him, and his priuate friends Canonicall obedience. And tis very good reason so to doe for transgressing the 18 ^th Canon, which is the 4. law. The words are these. When in time of Diuine seruice, the Lord Iesus shalbe mentioned, due, and lowly Reverence shalbe done by all persons present, as it hath beene accustomed: Testifying by these outward Ceremonies and Gestures their inward Humility, Christian Resolution, and due acknowledgment, that the Lord Iesus Christ the True, and Eternall sonne of God, is the only Sauiour of the world, in whom alone all the mercies, Grac [...]s, a [...]d promises of God to mankind, for this life, and the life to Come are fully, and wholy Compris [...]d. And then is not he very worthily excommunicated, that scornes to Bow at the name of Iesus, s [...]ing the fin [...]ll end thereof is to testify his Humble, Cristianly R [...]solute, a [...]d due acknowledgement of his faith, that the Lord Iesus is the Sauing King of the Catholique Church?

And is this Christian Reader, Idolatry to be cried down [...]? To Bow at the name of Iesus is Idolatry! To Bow at the name of Iesus is Idolatry! Is this Religious Bowing to bee b [...]fled with an outery? A Reformation! A Reformation! Vnreasonable Ani [...]als▪ Wilfull Gainesaying Humonsts! He that peremptorily, and impenitently teacheth against this Rev [...]rend, & Honorable Bowing at the name of Iesus, [...]o [...]es not the Lord Iesus: and S ^t. Paul [...] would haue such an ob [...]inate sinner rewarded according to his great stomack [...]. Thus: If any man Loue not the Lord Iesus, let him be Anathema Maran [...]atha. 1. Cor 16. 22. L [...]t him be accursed with a bitter curse, with the Greater Excommunication.

I must not say, that M. Prin [...]s heart doth not [...]o [...]e the Lord Iesus▪ only God is the s [...]archer out, and the d [...]ce [...]ning [...] of the secret court of consc [...]enc [...]. But tis very cert [...]ine, t [...]t M. [...]rinns daring phansy hath most vnsuff [...]rably disho [...]o [...] red the exalted, the most honoured, and the most glori [...]s na [...] of Iesus. His Appendix [...]s wi [...]tnesse▪ which is a contradictorious suppose, Ignoratio Elenchi, a [...]a [...]e supposa [...] That [Page 10] bowing at the name of Iesus is nothing. His suppositious prooffes to defend this Erroneous despightfull Hypothesis, are two. Thus: bowing at the name of Iesus is neither a duty of the text, nor an arbitrary, harmelesse, and decent Ceremonie.

If you will see M ^r Prinne in full view of his colours you must obserue these foure questions. First whether bowing at the name of Iesus be some thing? Secondly whether bowing at the name of Iesus be a duty according to the letter of Phil. 2. 10? 3 ^ly. whether bowing at the name of Iesus be a dutie according to the Reall meaning of the text? Fourthly whether Bowing at the name of Iesus be an Arbitrary, Harmles, and Decent Ceremony? This is the substance of the appendix. Here you shall see his Imperious, Daring boldnes against our Church.

Difficile est Satyram non scribere——

Who can endure his High looke, and his proud stomacke? although tis true, that neglect had beene answeare good enough for his confus'd matter and method; for his vaine, and idle suppositions: yet the vnlearned may ouervalue his Anti-Iesus-Appendix. But reason there is none, why any one should regard such an irregular non-licet. Missiue authoritie he hath none to teach: for he is no publique Ecclesiasticall Priest: and learned Iudicious charitie he hath none: for learned and charitable faith will not breake the peace of established Religion; of Religion established according to Canonicall scripture. I would to God, that he had taken counsell of his Colledg-moderator▪ then friendly Suppression should haue buried this vntimely fruite. But to what purpose is it to wish him good, that wisheth so litle peace to the Church? There is nothing to be done by me for him, but to pray for him, and confute his arguments, that the weake in faith be not shaken, nor troubled, and that he be not in loue with his great sinne committed against the Lord, & his Church. So let the stiffe-necked, & stiffe-kneede be made to know themselues to be but men, but erroneous men: and that Iesus is the Lord, at whose name their knees [Page 11] must bow, now in the time of grace. I pray God, giue all them, that loue the Lord Iesus so much pietie, as that they ever worship him, not only inwardly with the heart, but joyntly with soule, and body▪ with heart, and knee that at the last day the whole church may enjoy his Glorious Benediction. Thus I continue,

The Heartie well wisher of all humble Christians Giles Widdowes.

[Page]

[Page 13]

WHETHER BOVVING AT THE NAME OF IESVS bee some thing?

CErtainely Bowing at the name of Iesus is some thing. For in genere Entis in being tis an action. In genere moris, in being a duty tis an externall religious action. In signification, it is a Religious relation, or ceremony. It is a Religious action, and a Religious subordination of the knee to a Religious heart is its essentiall difference. Its Terminus a Quo is the name Iesus rehears'd, and heard at time of diuine service. Its Terminus ad Quem, or Finis Cui, for whose sake it is done, is the Al-sauing, and Glorious person Iesus. Its terminus ad Quem, or finis Qui for what purpose we Bow, is to testify humbly, resolutely, with due acknowledgement, that Iesus Christ is King of Kings. The deserver of this bowing, is Iesus in his humility. The Principall commander of this bowing is the Holy Ghost. The subordinate commander is the Church. The Immediate internall cause is faith, hope, and charity. The Immediate externall cause signifying, is the Preacher, or Reader of diuine seruice. The Immediate externall cause signified, is the obiect, which [Page 14] is the text. Philip. 2. 9. 10. and the 18 ^th Canon of our Church. Its Radical Subiect is the Regenerate will: Its regenerate directer is the knowing faithfull vnderstanding. Its Principall guyde is the Holy Ghost. Its mysticall Head giuing motion, and sence and life to Bow, is Iesus himselfe: Its Radicall organ is the Heart. Its visible Organ is the knee. Its time when, is Toties Quoties, so oft as the name Iesus is rehears'd in divine service. As the Bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus signifies the Bowing of the heart: and as the Bowing of the heart at the name of Iesus is signified by the visible bowing of the knee. This outward bowing is the relate to the inward Bowing: and the Inward Bowing is the Correlate to the outward Bowing, the signifying decency of the knee: this is the morall Ceremonious Relation. Significabilis humilitas, internall humility signified, that is the Reall, Morall Correlation. But what if M ^r Prinne vnderstands not Internall Relations, Entities, Causations, Inherence, producted, and mutuall Dependence herein? What doth not he vnderstand, and yet presumes to confute Iudicious BP Andrewes, Zanchius, D ^r Boyes, M ^r Hooker, M ^r Adams, &c. Then let him put of his hasty spirit, and Learne true Christian humility: for he is to young to be a Iudge in our Church, & to condemne well deserving men, is not the duty of a Christian. Here are 25. arguments, which a Iudicious intellect is able to produce, and thereby to prooue, that Bowing at the name of Iesus is some thing. But yet heare M ^r. Prinnes arguments, wherewith hee would conclude that Bowing at the name of Iesus is nothing.

Obiection. 1.

If Bowing at the name of Iesus be some thing: then tis either a duty of the Text: which is the Sorbonists, Rhemists, BP. Andrewes and Mr. Adams doctrine: or else it is an Indifferent, Innocēt, Harmeles Ceremony, which is the doctrine of Zanchius Mr. Hooker. Dr Boyes, and M ^r. Widdowes. A Ceremony which no man is constrainde to vse: so M ^r. Hooker. But this cannot be: for thus one doctrine confounds the other. [Page 15] Therefore Bowing at the name of Iesus is nothing.

Solution.

These are the words of the Right Reverend, and Orthodoxe BP. Andrewes; What way more sit to expresse our humility by, than by bowing at the name of Iesus: this signe of humblenes? Thus thē bowing at the name of Iesus is a Ceremony according to BP Andrewes: And he saith, that Bowing at the name of Iesus is a reward of Iesus his passion. ser. 9. on the Resurrection. pag. 475. Thus, Bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty of the text according to the BP. Zanchius sayth: that to Bow at the name of Iesus is a duty. Quod omne genu debet flectere ad nomen Iesu: at Philip. 2. 10. pag. 124. That every knee ought to Bow at the name of Iesus. Et antiquissima Consuetudo in Ecclesijs, vt Cum nominatur Iesus, omnes aperiant Caput, in testimonium Reuerentiae, & adorationis pag. 123 It was a most anciēt custome in the Church for men to vayle, & bow at the name of Iesus, in tokē of reverēce & adoration of Iesus. Thus Zanchius saith, that bowing at the name of Iesus is both duty & ceremony. M. Hooker doth teach the cause, why Christian men anciently did, and doe, especially stand, and bow, when the Gospell is read: Because the Gospell doth containe, what our Saviour spake, or did doe, or did suffer in his owne person. Then according to M. Hooker, the Church did acknowledg bowing to be a duty due to Iesus, by reason of what Iesus said, did doe, and by reason of his passion: And he saith that this Bowing was in token of greater reverence. &c: lib. 5. of his Ecclesiasticall Politie pag: 248. Concerning that He saith, that no man is constrain'd to Bow: this is true in our daies: for M. Prinne knoweth that the penall law is not executed on all them, which doe not bow, and but only on them, which revile bowing at the name of Iesus. But yet the text, and the 18. Canon tie all to bow. Here you may obserue, that M. Hooker teacheth that to bow at the name of Iesus is a duty: because due by reason of Iesus his passion, and that tis a ceremony, because tis a token of greater reverence.

[Page 16]

Dr. Boyes saith that Bowing at the name of Iesus is a Reuerend regard of the Sonne of God aboue other messengers. And in this sense then tis a duty. And he saith, that tis a respect most profitable against infidels, Iewes, Arians, who derogate from the honour of Iesus. pag. 280. on the Gospell for the Sunday next before Easter. And thus then ti's a ceremony.

Mr. Adams saith, that God hath Created corporall Organs to expresse without, the mentall devotion within. Then bowing at the name of Iesus is a morall signe, and so a ceremony. And that we must worship, and bow downe, and kneele before the Lord our maker pag. 1203. in his meditations on the ereede. Thus he saith bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty, required not on [...]y at Philip. 2, but at Psal. 95.

The Sorbonists Mr. Prinne hath quoted out of Calvin on Phil. 2. But he makes no mention of the Sorbonists: and he fauours not there M ^r Prinnes assertion. These are his words non interiore modo Cordis affectu, sed externa quo (que) professione Colendus est Deus, si velimus illi reddere, quod suum est. We must worship Iesus with the heart, and we must worship him with the knee also, if wee giue him the honour, that is due to him. The second quoted concerning the Sorbonists is Marlorat: and he saith that they belieue, that this name Iesus is magicall, that it hath totā vim in sono inclusam: a reail vertue being pronounc'd. But these are Marlorats owne words. Adoratio hic notatur, quae est Dei propria: Cuius symbolum est genuflexio in Philip. 2. Here bowing is a token of worshiping Iesus, of adoration, which is proper vnto God. D. Willet in his Synopsis doth not mention the Sorbonists, but saith that this Bowing is the same, which God challenge [...]h to himselfe. pag. 1165. The Magdeburgians doe teach, that to Bow at the name of Iesus is the reward of Iesus his obedience. Cent 1. lib 2. cap. 4 pag. 241. de doctrina pag. 252. & pag. 336. But in the 2. Cent. cap. 5. there is nothing concerning Bowing at the name of Iesus. no mention of the Sorbonists. Adorabunt te, & in te precabuntur, quoniam inte Deus est, & non est alius Deus praeterte. Margarinus de la Bigne ex alma Sorbon [...] [Page 17] schola. This bowing is an adoration of God, and we must worship Iesus, for he is the one, and only God.

The Rhemists say that Bowing at the name of Iesus is religion on Philip. 2. that it causeth a religious remembrance of Iesus. They teach Bowing a duty, and a remembrance. D ^r Fulke on Philip. 2. against the Rhemists sayth, that Bowing at the name of Iesus may be well vsed, and is not to be misliked &c. M ^r Cartwright is affraid to affirme, or deny this bowing at Phil. 2. Cōclusio tua, qua infers &c. quod nomē Iesu honore nō colam, falsa & excogitata est. D ^r Whitaker, in his answeare to M ^r William Rainolds, refutation chap. 16. pag. 442. But pag. 398. & 399. are false Quotations. D ^r Whitaker did bow at the name of Iesus not superstitiously, but religionsly, as it may appeare in his cited place, Giles Widdowes, saith in his Sermon, the Schismatical Puritan, that Bowing at the name of Iesus is expresse scripture. And tis true, for the Bowing of all things is expressed: and therefore this bowing is expressed enough for an obedient capacity: thus then tis a commanded duty. Every knee shall bow &c. I say that bowing &c. is a morall decent gesture and so saith Luther at Esay. 45. signifying the hearts worshipping of Iesus which is externall adoration and so tis a Ceremony.

The learned BP. &c. teach that bowing at the name of Iesus is both duty and Ceremony: So M ^r Prinnes diuision into a duty of the text, and into a Ceremony, is but a false surmise to defend faction. But what dares not King Vzzias Lay-Chaplaine doe, to humor his priuate friends?

Obiection 2.

A Ceremony, which hath immediate reference to the very person of Christ doth differ really from a duty of the text. Bowing at the name of Iesus hath immediate reference to the very person of Christ. Therefore bowing at the name of Iesus is no duty of the Text. This argument M ^r Prinne hath disputed against BP Andrewes, and Mr Adams. This is his Marginall note.

[Page 18]

Solution.

The Maior is not true: for bowing at the name of Iesus is a Ceremony and a duty: How can that be? Thus: As bowing of the knee, signifies the religious bowing of the heart at the name of Iesus, so it is a religious Relation, or Ceremony: and essentially it hath reference only to the signified humility of the Heart, that this doth honour Iesus by bowing at his name. But relatiue obedience must haue its Terminum ad quem, or Finem Cui: a Person, to whom tis tied: so this bowing at the name of Iesus hath the person of Iesus; for to him we must bow. In signification then of its Correlate, which is the bowing of the Heart, it is a Ceremony; In vse, or practise tis a duty, due to the person of Iesus. At the time of Gods rewarding Iesus, the Text not long after sayth: Every knee shall bow &c. thus tis a duty commanded by God himselfe. At the neglect of bowing at the name of Iesus, the 18. Canon of our Church sayth, that all present at diuine seruice shall bow at the name of Iesus. Thus tis a duty commanded by the Church. We must bow to testify our humility of Heart, thus tis a moral Ceremony. For Iesus his sake wee must bow. So Bowing as the thing considered is both duty and Ceremony: but for a diuerse consideration, as tis a Ceremony, you see tis not a duty, and as tis a duty, it is not a Ceremony. The same thing bowing hath a twofold respect: the one of morall signification, to make it a Ceremony: the other of practice commanded, to make it a duty. Mentall deuotion will not serue. God will haue both corporall, and vocall to expresse it by: so BP. Andrewes. We must bow with our knees and confesse thus implicitely, that Iesus is the Lord. Thus the same BP. So know then that the same bowing is both a duty, and a Ceremony.

Obiection 3.

To omit a religious duty is a sinne. To omit bowing at the name of Iesus is noe sinne. For at swearing by, and at blaspheming of the name of Iesus, we ought not to Bow.

[Page 19]

Solution.

Every time is not the measure of euery motion, but of its owne. The practice of grace is a good motion, and the time thereof is good, very well imployde, to a good purpose, to the honour of Iesus. The practice of sinne is an ewill motion, and its time is euill. But those motions haue their owne times: and so haue all things els vnder heauen. Eccles. 3. But I am sure, that swearing, and blaspheming haue noe appoynted times. They and their times are forbidden, and therefore away with such a blaspheming argument. Things forbidden are vnlawfull for Christians; at no time they must bee admitted. But bowing at the name of Iesus is a commanded duty. And because the Church hath seene the b [...]ffling of Catchpole Scripturists, she hath namde the time of bowing at the name of Iesus. The time is the time of diuine seruice, so we read at the 18. Canon. A very congruous time. Euery commanded thing hath its commanded time, and therefote bowing at the name of Iesus hath its commanded time proper to it selfe, so exclusiue of all other times, that only a religious time must be, and is the time of bowing at the name of Iesus. If M ^r Prinne, be such a Borrower, or exchanger of times, let him answeare this argument for his owne argumēts sake. Mr Prinne is M. Prinne at all times, & at all places, If at all times therefore he was M ^r Prinne before his father was borne: for that time is time, for that time is subordinate to one of the species of time. And so he is a very [...].

Obiection. 4

Every religious duty is vniversall either in respect of person, time or place; But bowing at the name of Iesus is not vniversall for person. For the Popish Councell of Basil prescribes it only to Canonicall persons: so Surius Concil. Tom. 4 pag. 61. The councell of Seine, or Sienna restraines it only to the same persons. Concilium Senonense decreta morum. Cap. 18. Surius Tom. 4. Pap. 741. The Synode of Augusta Anno Dom. 1548. Cap. 27. hath decreed that Ecclesiasticall persons shall bow at the name of Iesus; and at the name of the B. [Page 20] Virgin Mary, and at the mention of the body and blood of Christ. Surius Tom. 4. Pag. 810. 2 ^ly bowing at the name of Iesus is not an vniversall duty for time, & place. For men bow not at all times. Gregory the 10 (one of the first Fathers of it) restrains it to celebrating the Masse. Sexti decretalia l. 2. T. 23. c. 2. The Councell of Basil restraines it to Canonicall houres in Cathedrall, and Collegiate Churches. In like manner the Councell of Seine. The Synode of Augusta restraines it to Sermons and Masses. M. Hooker confines bowing at the name of Iesus onely to the time of reading the Gospell.

Solution.

Here M. Prinne disputes against Protestants, and Papists: but being ignorant of Modalities, De quibus non degustauit. He erres vnsufferably in his reports. For the Councell of Basil doth not prescribe bowing at the name of Iesus only to Canonicall persons. These are the words. Statuit igitur Sancta Synodus, vt in cunctis Cathedralibus, & Collegiatis Ecclesiis &c: Cum nominatur gloriosum illud nomen Iesus, in quo omne genu flectitur caelestium, terrestrium & infernorum, omnes caput inclinent: this is M. Prinnes note. All Cathedrall, and Collegiate Churches shall bow at the name of Iesus. But M. Prinne, where is your exclusiue tearme (Onely?) You must plead A non est inventus. That word Only is not in any Popish Councell. Only they drinke the holy wine at Masse, I meane the Popish Priests, but that Only They shall bow at the name of Iesus: No Protestāt at any time as yet did iustly charge them with. And what if the Synode of Augusta hath cōmāded Papists to bow at the name of the B. Virgin Mary, & at the mentiō of the body & blood of Christ. what is that to this purpose? That which is good in Austin the Popish Arch-bishop of Canterbury, we imbrace, and commend: but that which is otherwise, let it wither in the roote, from whence it sprang: so, M. Mason lib. 2. cap. 4. of consecration of Bishops pag. 58. Our Church (Gods holy name ever be blessed,) is purged from popish corruption: & the Lord Iesus preserue her from Imperious Puritans. What hath our Church to doe with Popish religion? Reade the 18. Article [Page 21] of our reformed Faith, and so informe your vnderstanding in the name Iesus. Once more let me tell M. Prinne that hee injur'd Pope Gregory the 10. His words are these —Quod generaliter scribitur, vt in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur, singuli singulariter implentes, (praecipue dum aguntur missarum sacra mysteria) gloriosum illud nomen quandocun (que) recolitur flectant genua cordis sui, quod vel capitis inclinatione testentur. Here M. Prinnes quotation is Sexti Decretalia. lib. 2. Tit. 23. cap. 2. But tis lib. 3. de Immunitate Ecclesiae. c. Decet. 6. Here Gregory the 10. commands all to bow at the name of Iesus: and not (only) but chiefely at the Masse. But that Gregory the 10, who liu'd in the yeare of the Lord. 1271. was one of the first Fathers of bowing at the name of Iesus, this is fabulous: a part of the Puritans Legend. Had M. Prinne beene carefull to haue pervs'd Bishop Andrews his 9 ^th Sermon on the Resurrection: He had read these words. No writer (not of the Ancient) on this place, that I can finde, saue he, that turn'd all into Allegories but literally vnderstands it, and likes well, that we should actually bow. pag. 476. there you may see Authorities, that bowing at the name of Iesus did not begin at Gregory the 10 ^ths. time. S ^t Cyrill the Bishop of Alexandria, who liu'd in the yeare of the Lord 430. saith, that the Church then did bow at the name of Iesus cap. 5. Thus numquid hominem communem, & nos, & vniuersū coelum hactenus percolimus? Absit. Adoramus Emmanuelē &c. Binius in his Coll: of Councells Tom: 1. Actorū cōilij Ephesini oecumenici pag. 670. we bow at the name of Emmanuel, because he being the sonne of God tooke on him our nature, died, by his owne power did rise againe, and so made vs the conquerors of death. And who is Emmauel but Iesus? To this purpose Athanasius, who liued 326. yeares after Christ, writeth. Ideo adorauit, quia vidit suum opificem, Architectum (que) in carne consistere Et in nomine Iesu omne genu Flectebatur, et in posterum flectetur. In his Epistle to Adelphius pag. 69. Therefore the Church did bow, doth, and shall bow at the name of Iesus: because she hath, doth, [Page 22] and shall behold by faith▪ Iesus in our flesh. Flectebatur: the Church then did bow at the name of Iesus before that time of Athanasius. Thus then tis plaine, that Gregory the 10. was not one of the first Fathers of bowing at the name of Iesus. Concerning M ^r. Hooker: he saith that we chieflly bow at the name of Iesus, when the Gospell is read: but he saith not, that then is the only time of bowing. M ^r Prinnes argument is enough to confound the law, if men were so simple as to belieue him. Thus, thou shalt loue the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy soule, and with all thy strength. This is the cheifest law. Then if M ^r. Prinns manner of dispute be true, there is no other law. Then honour thy Father, and thy Mother &c. the lawes of the second table are no lawes. Then wee neede not loue our neighbours nor the, Church. Is this Schismaticall divinity? The heart is the cheifest member of mans body; then according to M ^r Prinns argument: man hath only an heart: then he hath no braines, no religion. The blind may follow the blind, til both fall in the ditch: but let vs follow the Churches direction, the 18 ^th Canon, and accordingly bow at the name of our Lord, and Sauior Iesus.

Obiection 5.

The primitiue Church never vs'd this bowing at the name of Iesus as a religious duty. Therefore to bow at the name of Iesus is not dutie of the text. Then twas nothing at all among them.

Solution

But to bow &c. was the custome of S ^t Hieromes time: these are his words on Esay cap. 45 ^th: Moris est Ecclesiastiei &c. T'is the twentith Canon of the Councell of Nice. Antiquissima consuetudo. Zanch: It was in the beginning: of the Church. Arch. Bishop Whitguift. Was S. Cyrill of Alexandria a Primitiue Father? And so was Athanasius Arch-Bishop of Alexandria: and they teach that bowing at the name of Iesus is a worshipping, and adoring of Iesus. Bishop Andrews saith, that all the Fathers, but Origen, doe literally [Page 23] vnderstand and approue of actuall bowing at the name of Iesus. The Councell of Ephesus consisting of 200. Bishops, against Nestorius hath inserted, bowing at the name of Iesus, amongst their Acts: so Binius Tom. 1. Collect. of Councells Cap. 5. pag. 685. The Councell of Ephesus saith, that we must adore Iesus with the worship of God: so Crabbe at the 8. Act of the Councell of Ephesus. And then did not the Primitiue Church bow at the name of Iesus? Si quis Crucifixum non adorat, sit Anathema, & inter Dei. cidas censeatur. So Nicholinus in his Collection of the Councell of Ephesus, cap. 7. Tom. 2. pag. 1004. If any man adore not Crucified Iesus, let him be accursed for the God-slaier. And so great was the authority of the Councell of Nice, Calcedon, Constantinople, and Ephesus, that S. Gregory the Great said, let him be accursed that doth not esteeme as well of them, as of the Evangelists: so Surius Tom. 1. pag. 254. on the life of Theodosius Coenobiarcha.

Obiection 6.

All the Protestant Churches haue reiected bowing at the name of Iesus. For they haue frequently writt against it. For they doe expound this bowing at the name of Iesus, to be only the bowing at the last day.

Solution.

When Reformation of Religion in King Henry the 8 ^ths Reigne was striuing in the wombe, then Thomas Cantuarien: Iohannes London: Stephanus Winton: &c. Edvardus Ebor. Cutbertus Dunelmen: Robertus Carliolen: with all Arch-deacons, with the Professors of diuinity, and law did not write against bowing at the name of Iesus: but did magnifie Iesus vilified by the Iewes. This is written in their Exposition of the Apostles Creede entituled the Institution of a Christian man, which King Henry the Eight commanded the two most Reverend Arch-Bishops, & all the Right Reuerend Bishops of both Provinces to write, to suppresse, remooue, and vtterly take away all Errors, Doubts, Superstitions, and Abuses in the Church to the Honour of Allmighty God, &c. to the perfect establishing [Page 24] of his Highnes subiects in good vnity, and Concord, and perfect quietnesse, both in their soules and bodies, Thus the Epistle Dedicatory to the High, and most Excellent Prince &c. King Henry the 8 ^th.

Againe Queene Elizabeth of ever blessed Memory, commands thus at 52. Iniunction. That whensoever the name of Iesus shall be in any Lesson, Sermon, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, that due Reverence be made of all persons, young, and old, with lowlinesse of curtesie, and vncovering of Heads of the mankinde, as therevnto doth necessarily belong, and heretofore hath beene accustomed. This is the 52. Iniunction. The 22. Iniunction is, that Ministers shall teach, &c: that no man ought obstinately, and malitiously to breake, and violate the laudable Ceremonies of the Church, &c.

In King Iames his Reigne Blessed for memory to the worlds end, then in the yeare of the Lord. 1604: The Answere of t [...] Ʋicechancellor, the Doctors, both the Proctors, and other the Heads of Houses in the Vniversity of Oxford, agreeable vndoubtedly to the Ioynt, and vniforme opinion of all Deanes, and Chapters, and all other the Learned, and obedient Cleargy in the Church of England, and confirm'd by the expresse cōsent of the Vniersity of Cambridge, doth testifie thus: Reverence done at the name of Iesus is no superstition, but an outward signe of inward subiection, to his divine Maiesty, and apparant token of our devotion. Cap. Concerning the matter of the complaint of some Puritans. Par. 10. And by successiue protection our gracious King Charles his 18 ^th Canon which is now in force commands all present at Church, to bow at the name of Iesus in time of Divine Service. Then 'tis a manifest truth, that our Church hath ever since her Reformation, bowed at the name of Iesus. As concerning other Churches reformed, I read that their teachers Preach bowing at the name of Iesus to be necessary. For Calvin writes on Philip. 2. that God is to be worshiped by externall profession: And Iesus is God. He is God and Man. Marlorat saith on the same place, that 'tis a worship due to God. Zanchius on [Page 25] the same place, that 'tis a testimony of our adoring Iesus. Musculus, that 'tis a witnesse of our inward reverence, and worshiping of Iesus. That all shall bow at the last day, Angels, Devills, Reprobates, and that now, the godly, and faithfull shall bow. Eilhardus Lubinus on Philip. 2. writeth, that he is a wicked man, that vncovers, and bowes at the name of his Prince, and yet will not vayle, nor bow at the name of Iesus. For who is greater, God, or the King? Or must not we honour God more, then the King? Or is bowing with the knee or putting off the Hatt, too much honour for Iesus, the exalted Lord of life? The Puritan picks a quarrell at the fiue letters (IESVS) So ignorant the captious Schismatiques declare themselues to be. What if some write against bowing at the name of Iesus? What must be done therefore? Let vs be tried by the letter, and meaning of Philip. 2: and then I hope, the Controversie shall be perfectly ended.

Whether Bowing at the name of IESVS bee a duty according to the letter of Philip. 2. 10?

SPELL, and then tis Thus by articulation: At the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow: Read, or write, & still they are the same letters. And then seeing that one not more learned than a writing Boy, nay then a Reading, or spelling child can assure the doubting Questionist, that there are no more, no fewer and that only These are the letters of Philip. 2. 10. how dares a Professor be so bold, as to say, that to bow at the name of Iesus is not a duty of the Text according to the letter? After the substance of the letter, examine the signification of these words: whether Iesus signifies any person else at Philip. 2. but the Lord Iesus: not Ioshua who is called Iesus only twise in the new Testament: once at Acts 7. 45. and once at Heb. 4. 8. Nor doth this Iesus a literall & personall name signifie Iustus who is called Iesus. Coloss. 4. 11. And as for Iesus the sonne of Iosedecke Agge. 1. 1. he is not read in the new Testament, nor is [Page 26] Iesus the sonne of Sirach in any text of the Gospells, or Epistles. So here is no ambiguity; for tis perspicuous, not is here any error, for tis Certaine, that the Lord Iesus is only Iesus written, & read, and vnderstood at Philip. 2. It is manifest that this is true by M ^r Prinnes Quotations: by these: Clemens Alexandrinus. Tertullian, S ^t Cyprian loco 10, 20, & 30. S ^t Hilarie loco 10, Greg. Nyssen loco 20, S ^t Ambrose loco 10, 20, 30 &c. S ^t Cyrill of Alexandria loco 10, Fulgentius loco 20, and Iohn the 2, Pope. Therefore let no man doubt, but that only the Lord Iesus is literally this proper, personall name Iesus written at Philip. 2. The 2. word in the text is knee, (Euery knee) at which M ^r Prinne doth stumble. The letters are visible enough in his owne English Bible: for substance one, and the same: for number all equall with these (EƲERY KNEE) and for posture not dislocated. And what kind of knees all creatures haue, this is not written in the letter expressely litterally: but those knees, which the creatures haue, they shall bow: and they shall bow every one their owne knees, and that without proxies for every knee sayth the text, shall bow: all Angelicall, all infernall, and all corporeall knees: The knees of things in Heauen, of things in the Earth, & of things vnder the Earth. S ^t Paule writes here true literall divinitie: M ^r Prinne will grante this of all tongues in Heauen, because they shall all confesse, that Iesus is the Lord: For it is the tongue that confesseth, and so he may say as truly, that Angells, & other spirits haue knees, for the same Author hath iustified it in one, and the same Philip. 2. The 3. word is bowing, which Calvin calls externall adoration in vs at Philip. 2. & we must glorify God in our Bodie, and spirit. 1. Cor. 6. for that end He bought vs with the price of his vnvaluable life. Calvin sayth that now in this life we must bow at the name of Iesus, not only inwardly but outwardly in his Commmentaries on Isay, 45. Rom. 14. & Philip. 2. & the same say Musculus, Aretius, Bullinger, Marlorat, Zanchius &c. And rather at the name of Iesus, than at any other name of God: because God in his 2. person, [Page 27] named Iesus only humbled himselfe, and died the death, even the death of the crosse. A good Lecturer, may finde this divinity in the very letter of Philip: 2. Must all knees bow at the name of Iesus? Must all knees? Then I pray you obserue with me hence this Doctrine. All Christian knees in the Militant Church must bow at the name of Iesus. Is this true doctrine, All knees must bow? But when? Then, when they must honour Iesus. And now is a time, and appoynted by the Lord to worship. Psal. 95. no worship, neither inward, nor outward, God by scripture hath denyed to be given to Iesus. God hath not said that we must worship him only at the last day. The Prophet Isaiah hath not writ it, nor S ^t Paule: but the letter of the text is expresse; that he hath allready merited all Honour: and that every knee shall therefore bow at the name of Iesus: And is the time of our Christian life too sodaine a time, as that now we must not worship him? The 24. Elders haue proclaimed the contrary: Reuel. 5. Obserue this vse. Did Iesus die for vs? What? Did Iesus die the death of the Crosse? was Iesus so cruelly, so despightfully, so disdainfully handled for his Church? Then in time of divine service let Iesus haue giuen to him, knee, & hat for a free will offering: nay more: Giue him heart, and soule, and body, euen all Decent, & well order'd honour. Iesus thought that his life was not too much to saue miserable sinners: and therefore 'tis an odious ingratitude to denie him knee-honour at the time of holy worship, seing by his promise he is in the midst of them, that are gathered togeather in his name Iesus, to praise, and magnifie him for all blessings conferr'd on his People. But Master Prinne never thought of this: and therefore he disputes, as followeth:

Obiection.

To bow in the name of Iesus, is not to bow at the name of Iesus. But the letter of the text is: euery knee shall bow in the name of Iesus. Thus all the Fathers hereafter quoted. Thus all the Translations, but Bezas. Thus all the Expositors on this Epistle, but those, who follow Beza: Thus all our [Page 28] English Translations, but Geneuas which is Beza translated. The new translation is, In the name of Iesus: so all ancient English writers, who quote this scripture.

Solution.

[...]. The praeposition [...] signifies in, or at: so Petrus Gillius Albiensis. Grammer learning doth teach thus much. And tis very rationall, and as vulgar, as true. In Grammar we say in a place, or at a place. In a bill, or a bond, Mr Seriuener writes, in or at the dwelling house of &c. at, in, or on the 25. of March, which shall be in An. Dom, &c. Thus in, and at a place; in & at a time are promiscuously vsed. So speaking of the time, when Iesus is repeated, to put vs in remēbrance of bowing at his name, we doe truly, and properiy say. In the time or at the time of divine service, when Iesus is mentioned, every knee shall bow. The 18 ^th Canon is the same in sence according to either of the acceptions. At Michaelmas Terme, and in or at some other terme all Lawiers will follow their owne vocation, and not continue bold, and ignorant Immodalists in expounding Philip. 2. and other scriptures. But howsoeuer remember, that in Michaelmas terme, or at Michaelmas terme aut eo circiter, I thus answeard a lawier, translated into a Pastor, or Dr. of the Church: that in a place and at a place: in a time, & at a time are not formally differing expositions. But stay, Mr Prinne is in another error: he saith that all the Fathers write, in the name of Iesus every knee shall bow. But yet this is not true Christo Iesu Domino nostro &c. omne genu curuetur: so Irenaeus l. 1. c. 2. adversus Haereses pag. 51. Every knee must bow to Iesus Christ o [...]r Lord. Donatur Iesu, vt Caelestia, & terrestria & inferna genua Electant: so S. Hilary l. 9. de Trinitate pag. 135. God gaue Iesus this honour, that all knees in heauen, & earth, & hell should bow to him. But yet let Puritans bow in the name of God, in the name of Iesus, if they will follow the Fathers, & any expositors but Beza, and his followers. Let them bow in the name of Iesus, who doth hinder them? Beza translates, at the name of Iesus: Iunius, and Tremellius, in the name of Iesus: [Page 29] These trāslations are quiet enough in the same testament: A Schismatique cannot make them differ. St. Hieromes translation is, in the name of Iesus, & the translation of S. Chrysostome, S ^t Cyril &c. Surius, Binius, and Crabbe, in their collection of Councells render the Fathers speaking: Every knee shall bow at the name of Iesus. The difference is so litle, that a Schoole-boy scornes so silly an Argument. But what doth not our Church translation, the last render, every knee shall bow at the name of Iesus. Consule Textum: Read. And doe not our Ancient English writers say at the name of Iesus? What say you to Queene Elizabeths 52. Iniunction: which saith, that our Church hath heretofore beene accustomed to bow at the name of Iesus, before that Iniunction was made? Doth not M ^r Prinne knowe, that Bishop Andrews, D ^r Boyes, M ^r Hooker, are ancient enough to be his Tutors in Divinity? O but they are not Non-conformists? And shall Non-conformists put downe our Church doctrine, and discipline? Away rather with such Lawlesse, and Headlesse fellowes to Amsterdam, or to New-England. In the causall sense of these translations, in the name and at the name of Iesus, it is thus. In the name: That is in the power, and authority of Iesus we bow. And hence you may obserue the originall Efficient of bowing to make it a very lawfull bowing. At the name of Iesus: That is: Iesus is Finis cui, the all glorious Person, for whose honours sake we bow, to testifie that he is worthy of all praise. Thus the end of bowing at the name of Iesus is to good purpose, necessary, and noble. The authority of Iesus is lawfull, therefore bow: The honour of Iesus is the greatest honour, therefore they that loue his honour will bow at the name of Iesus. And are the authority, and honour of Iesus nothing among Hypocriticall Outside-conceptists? This imperious daring generation doth provoke authority to punish, and honour to reject such ignorant coniecturall Divinity.

Objection.

The letter doth not signifie the name Iesus, but only his power, or person. For Iesus is the Genitiue Case, and the genitiue [Page 30] case denotes only power, or person: not Iesus his particular name. And the text Isay. 45. 23. Rom. 14. 11. saith: Euery knee shall bow to me.

Solution.

To bow to Iesus his name, and not to his person, no rationall man can be so ignorant: How basely doth M ^r Prinne iudge of our Church-worship? To bow to Iesus his person without a name, what is this, but to take away his name from his person. And take away his name, and how then is his person signified or honoured? The Iewes did acknowledge Iesus his name with scorne: these were open and profess'd enimies: They bow'd their knee, mock'd him, vilified his name and crucified him. The Puritans are sly sirs. They will say nothing, but holinesse, they will doe nothing but holinesse, they are professed Puritās no where but in Cō vēticles. If Chameliōs had a religion (they are such Chainglings) then a rationall man may say with safety enough that there are the Puritans. They are holy in their owne conceipt. They will not bow to IESVS. Not to his name nor to his person. Grace hath no knees: The time of Glory hath knees in every thinge: Glory shall bow: Grace must be vnreuerend, and vnmannerly: this is their holinesse. Here obserue M ^r Prinne, that Iesus his name cannot be the Genitiue case. Why? Only power, or the person of Iesus is put in the Genitiue case. This is easily to be refelled. Thus. In nomine Iesu. What part of speech is (Iesu:) A Nowne: and a Nowne Substantiue. Of what case? Of the Genitiue. Why? Because Iesu is the latter of two Substantiues, Nomine is the former. Iesus is the person here signified in the Genitiue case: this M. Prinne vnderstāds. But what Nowne else, but Iesu signifies this person in the Genitiue case? It is against Puritanisme to answere. Is it possible if hee did honour the person of Iesus, but that thereby hee must honour the name of Iesus. For that which is honour'd as the Quo, by which Iesus is signified to be honoured, is his name Iesus. That which is honoured as the Quod, as the thinge to be had in all honour, by our [Page 31] soules, and bodies, by our hearts & knees, this is Iesus his almighty persō, because he hath deserued more thē our kneehonour by suffering all disgrace. So here is one reason more, then Almightinesse, why we must bow at Iesus his name: More then the reason at Esay 45. 23. Rom. 14. 11. Holy and Reverend is the name of the Lord. Thus the Psalmist. But Iesus Quâ Iesus deserued more than by any other Attribute of his, is signified. For all say, that greater is the worke of Redemption, restitution, saluation, than of creation. I will tell M ^r Prinne one answere more to this argument. Because Aristotle saith cap. 2 pag. 4. lib. de Interpretatione, that oblique cases are not nownes. Yet in a cadency they are nownes; though only the nominatiue case be the originall instituted nowne. This I haue said, because M ^r Prinne may remēber, that he did learne that Sophistry-argumēt at Oriel Colledg, when he was there a Freshman. You know the law: Thou shalt not take Gods name in vaine. You must not say, that Gods name is not honourable, that it is not to be honoured. And is not Iesus God? Semper vt Deus a Creaturis Colitur. D. Cyril: Thesauri lib. 8. pag. 99. The creatures must worship Iesus as God. And thus the psalmist psal. 98. psal. 71. psal. 28. psal. 19. These are S ^t Cyrills Quotations.

Obiection.

The letter of the text is that every knee must bow at that name, which is aboue every name. But the name Iesus is not aboue every name. For it is not aboue these names: Mediator, Saviour, Christ, Lord, Sonne of God, Lambe of God, Emmanuel, God &c. For all these doe signifie Christ so well, so properly, so really, as Iesus doth

Solution.

All these names, are the names of Iesus. They doe signifie Iesus well, and properly. Mediator signifies the office of Iesus, that he is the only reconciler of God, and man. Saviour is the interpretation of Iesus. Matth. 1. Christ signifies Iesus to be the anoynted of the Lord. Psal. 2. Lord signifies Iesus to haue dominion over all the world. Psal 95. Sonne of God [Page 32] signifies Iesus in his eternall generation before all worlds. Ioh. 8. Lambe of God signifies Iesus, the eternall sacrifice. Ioh. 1. Emmanuel signifies Iesus incarnate, and so God with vs. Matth. 1. God signifies Iesus his providence, Iehouah his infinite, incomprehensible, omnipotent essence, which is the Godhead. All these names doe thus signifie Iesus. But was any name of God so abus'd, as this name Iesus was? Signification is not the cause, why Iesus is the name aboue every name. But the cause is, because God was most of all vilified in this name. When his person was tyed in covenant to God to be our Surety, to fullfill the law, and to die for our sinnes, Matth. 1 Luc. 2. Matth. 3. Then the world did hate him. Iohn Chap: 6. 7. 8. 9. Then he was called Coniurer, and Beelzebub his familiar. So S ^t Hierome, S ^t Ambrose, S ^t Chrysostome, and S ^t Augustine: This willfull abuse being the sinne against the Holy Ghost. Mar. 3. Was a vilifiing of Iesus. The Scribes and Pharises did so persequute him, as the Puritans doe now neglect his name. They kill'd the Prince of life Act. 3. Because Iesus, God and man the saving surety of the Church was thus dishonoured, more in the name of Iesus, then in any other name, therefore we must bow rather at the name of Iesus, then at any other name of God. Gods will is, that his Church shall honour him in that name most of all, in which he was most of all dishonoured by the world. The letter of the text is thus: so Bishop Andrews out of S ^t Augustine. Humana natura res humilis est, ipsa quo (que) exaltari intelligitur. Nunquam de verbo Dei tale▪ quid in scripturis invenies, nisi secundum quod factum est caro, & habitauit in nobis. D. Cyril. Thesauri. lib. 8. pag: 99. Because Iesus did humble himselfe in our nature, therefore his humbled name Iesus is exalted, and is become the Greatest name of God. Deificauit, quod induerat. Athanasius Contra Arianos. Orat. 2 ^a, pag. 101. Iesus is honoured in his Deifying, and Deified nature, so honoured with double honour, at least in a double māner: with the same vndivided honour we adore the divinity, and humanity of Iesus: so the Councell of Ephesus, [Page 33] as Binius, Crabb, and Nicolinus haue obserued in their collections of Councells. And this is an honour aboue every honour. For as Iesus is God, so he is the highest, and his honour aboue all honour. But yet this text saith more, that Iesus is the greatest name of God: the greatest in desert, and now the greatest in Reward, in the glory of essence; the three persons are coequall, but not in the glory of merit, or rewarded humilitie; which is proper to the second person. If M ^r Prinne would haue disputed according to the letter of this Text: obedience, and therefore the exaltation of Iesus must necessarily haue bin his argument. But his letters are in otherscriptures: in 1 Tim. 2. 5. Luc. 2. 12. Math. 1. 16. &c. This is bafling, not disputing.

Obiection 4.

The letter of the text is that Every knee shall bow. But the litterall Expositors doe bow their heads, and vayle their hats. Therefore they obserue not the letter of the text.

Solution.

Wee must giue Iesus all the honour, that we can. Our hat vayl'd; and the bowing of our head are more honour than Puritans giue to the Lord Iesus. Their hats are nailed to their heads, when Iesus is nam'de, shewing noe more manners, and reverence, then children in vnderstanding, which want discretion. The truth is, that we should be vncouered in the house of the Lord 1. Cor. 11. 4. 5. 7. 'Tis thus at the 18 ^th Canon of our Church. But because the canon saith it, therefore the Non-Conformist is a contradictist. The hat, and head, & knee-worship are to litle. And I would to God, that they might be reformed, who will not bow, & that with punishment, if Admonition shall not prevaile. My reason is: no man dares put on his hat in his Maiesties Chāber of presence, signifying thereby the honour, due to so great a Prince. And therefore a Christian should be afraid much more to put on his hat in Gods house. For this is the place of Gods presence, his cheifest place of his honour amongst vs, where he is worshipped with holy worship: where his Ambassadors deliuer [Page 34] his Embassage: where his Priests Sacrifice their owne, and the Militant Churches prayers, and the Lords supper, to reconcile vs to God offended with our daily sinnes. All should bee bare. For Iesus is the Greatest Prince in all the world, the King of Kings, and the Lord of Lords. 1. Tim. 6. 15. The practise of some Puritans is to sit bare in the Church, not so much for reuerence to be done to God as to obscure their neglect of the name of Iesus. I pray God, giue them more grace, and more wit.

Obiection.

If euery knee must bow at the name of Iesus, of things in heauen and of things in the Earth and things vnder the Earth: Then there is one kinde of bowing in all things: viz. the bowing with the knee. But this cannot be. For Angells, Deuills, and soules departed haue no knees.

Solution.

At 148. psalme. all things are commanded to praise the Lord: viz: Angells, sunne, and moone, the heauens, the waters vnder the heauens, the Dragons, and all deepes: fire, and hayle &c. Must all these creatures then, praise the Lord in one, and the same manner: or rather according to that ability, which God hath giuen to euery creature? The Angells praise God in their kinde, singing their Halleluiahs: Apocalyp. 19. The sunne, and the moone praise God in an other manner, in running their Courses &c. psal. 19. Euery thing in his owne way doth praise the Lord. It is thus in bowing at the name of Iesus. The Angells, and Saints in heauen doe bow at the name of Iesus, as it becometh them, who liue in the state of glory: and the Militant Church doth bow, as they ought which liue in the state of grace, so farre forth as they cōforme their will to God. The Deuills, & Reprobates bow, as stubborne Prisoners. The Puritans grant, that Angells, and soules departed, and Deuills, shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord. But what tongues haue they if they haue no knees? They haue tongues so S ^t Paule. 1. Cor. 13. Analogicall tongues: so BP. Andrewes. And so they haue analogicall [Page 35] knees, which the Schoolemen call potentiam obedientialem, power for to obey. But what if Angells haue but similitudinary knees? yet they bow better, than we are able. Let vs not prate, but pray, that we may imitate the good Angells in their perfect serving of God, saying: Thy will be done in Earth, as it is in Heauen. As for the Deuills, and stubborne Men they must bow. A greater weight than the Wydowes Almes shall bringe them downe on their knees.

Whether Bowing at the Name of IESVS be a Duty according to the Meaning of the Text?

HVMILITAS Claritatis Meritum, & Claritas Humilitatis Praemium: so Iudiciously Solide Bp Andrewes out of S ^t Augustine on the 17. Chapter of S ^t Iohns Gospell. Humility the Merit worthy of honour: Honour the reward of Iesus his humility most worthily deseruing are the scope, or meaning, which the holy Ghost did signify to the Church by this scripture. Philip. 2. from the 5 ^th to the 12. verse. who this Person is, who is the Meritorious Practitioner of humility, the Text sayth He is Iesus Christ. Philip. 2. 5. The Terminus a Quo, whence Iesus began to humble himselfe, is his Equality with God in forme, or Essence; in his owne thought equall to God ver. 6. The first descent of his humiliation is his putting of the Glory of his diety; He made himselfe of no Reputation, answearable to his Maiesty. Then hee tooke on him the forme of a servante: this is his conception by the holy Ghost. Then he was made like vnto men, this is his Incarnation. Then he was found in shape as a man: this is his Nativity. Then he humbled himselfe liuing in obedience to poore Parents. Then he became obedient vnto the death. No sooner was he borne: but King Herod sought after his life. Matth. 2. No sooner did he preach, but his owne Countrimen, and kinsmen were offended at him. For casting out Deuills, he is proclaim'd to be a Coniurer: For his Excellency, [Page 36] and Maiesty obscurely perceaued, he is accused for a Seducer, and a Traitor. Then he submits to the sentence of the Iudge, and he condemn'd him, and his owne Nation did crucify him. Now behould how Iesus perform'd a Sauing suretiship for vs to God the Iust Iudge. We are the transgressors of Gods law: and therefore Iesus submitted to die. We are the Traitors against the king of Heauen, and Iesus was put to death. This is Iesus his greatest sauing humility: obserue it well, whether it be meritorious, and so meritorious, as to be honoured by all rationall Creatures. The Holy Ghost doth testify, that Iesus his humility hath deseru'd all honour of Heauen, and Earth, and Hell. Such a desert so well deseruing must needes inferre a large reward. And what is that? God hath highly exalted him, and giuen him a name aboue every name: that at the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow of things in Heauen, of things in the earth, and of things vnder the Earth. And that all tongues shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord. I will repeate Arch-BP Whitguifts words: These. One reason, that mooved Christians in the beginning rather to bow at the name of Iesus, than at any other name of God was, because this name was hated, and most contemned of the wicked Iewes, and other Persequutors of such as professed the name of Iesus. For other names of God, they had in reverence: but this name they could not abide. Wherefore the Christians to signify their faith in Iesus, and theit obedience to him, and to confute by open gesture the wicked opinion of the Iewes, and other Infidels, vsed to doe bodily reverence at all times, when they heard the name of Iesus, but especially when the Gospell was read, which containeth the glad tidings of salvation, which is procur'd vnto man by Iesus Christ &c. Neither can it be against Christianity, to shew bodily reueverence &c. These are the words of Orthodox D ^r Whitguift, the most Reuerend Arch-BP of Canterbury, in his Answeare to M ^r Thomas Cartwright in the defence of the Answeare to the Admonition, pag. 742. 'Tis merit, why Iesus is the [Page 37] name aboue euery name of God, not to adde an higher degree to Gods essence, or to his eslentiall glory: but to make it manifestly knowne, in which name God wilbe most gloryfied by his Triumphant, and Militant Church, and by his Enemies taken captiue, and made the Perpetuall Prisoners of Hell. Vpon S. Matth. 11. ver. 27. on these words. No man hath seene the father, but the sonne &c. S. Ambrose writes thus. Plus dix it defilio, quam de Patre, non quod plus habet, quam habet Pater, sed quod ne minus esse videatur. lib. 2. de spititu Sancto cap. 12. There the text sayth more of the Sonne, than of the Father: not because the Sonne hath more Authority than the Father: but because the sonne should not seeme to be inferiour to the Father: At Philip. 2. Merit is cause, why Iesus is the greatest name of God, propos'd to vs to worship. And the reason is very infallible. For seeing that God only in the name of Iesus would humble himselfe, and suffer shame, and rebuke: therefore in the same name, he is, and wilbe to the worlds end, most of all magnified. He wilbe more magnified in his name Iesus, than in any other Title. For no other name of his, but Iesus suffered shame, reproofe, death and Hell. Swearing dishonours God: Idolatry more: but God hanged on a tree: this is the great curse, the most shamfull dishonouring of Iesus. Yet thus Iesus redeemed vs from the curse of the law Gal. 3. 13. He was crucified in the flesh 2. Cor. 13 verse 4. Iesus was slaine, and hang'd on the Tree. Actes 5. 30. Still 'tis merit, why Iesus is exalted, why his name is aboue every name. God hath then rewarded Iesus; and he requires our duty, to bow at his name, and so acknowledg, that his name Iesus is aboue euery name, that he hath. God hath rewarded Iesus freely. [...]: God hath freely giuen him his name Iesus to be the name aboue euery name. He being dead in body, God rais'd him from death: He did not suffer his holy one to see corruption. When the humanity could not helpe it selfe, then God did, and rais'd Iesus to honour. There is the gift aboue every gift. Iesus his hands were enabled to [Page 38] receaue, the gift was put into his hands: and he hath honour so freely giuen him aboue all honour. Accepit, vt homo, quod habebat vt deus: His Manhood did receaue, and his Godhead did conferre the gift. I adde, his humbled Godhead did receaue his manifested greatest Exaltation. When Iesus his humanity was dead: the high Exaltation was a gift: and because Iesus did lay downe his life, the Exaltation is also a reward. Gratia vnionis, because Iesus is the most Excellent Person that died, therefore hee was rewarded with transcendent honour: thus Iesus is the Exalted name aboue every name. In this name Iesus are ioyn'd togeather Gods glory, and our safety; therefore God estemes of his name Iesus aboue all other his names: so B. Andrewes. Iesus is Gods only most deseruing name, and then by proportion of Iustice, Iesus is his only name aboue euery name: God made choyce of this name, aboue all his names, that we might accordingly esteeme of him, that esteem'd it aboue all, only for our sakes. This is the only name, by which we are saued. Act. 4. 12. The learned, and Right Reuerend B. Andrewes, sayth very remarkeably and solidly: that the name of Iesus is of more worth to vs, than the very name of God. For God in him reconcileth the world. 2. Cor. 5. 19. without Iesus, God is the Enemy to the world, and to vs. With Iesus there is comfort in the name of God: without Iesus there is none at all. Iesus is the name, that helpes vs out of sinne, and misery. For Iesus is God, and Man: so he is our Sauiour, our Allmighty, and most mercifull Iesus.

A last note that bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty of the text, and that we must bow in time of divine service, is Philip: 2. 10. 11. For then we must bow, when our tongues ought to confesse, that Iesus is the Lord. Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord. These must goe vnseparably togeather: so M ^r Prinne. And when must wee confesse that Iesus is the Lord? Not till the last day? No Christian dares say: That 'tis true. For we must confesse, that Iesus is the Lord in time of divine service. At the [Page 39] generall confession of our sinnes, we doe actually confesse that Iesus is the Lord, and then we bow. At rehearsing the Apostles Creede, we stand, and bow at the name of Iesus our Lord, who was conceiued by the Holy Ghost &c. At the second Lesson, though we sitt, yet we bow. At the Gospell we bow standing. The glorified bodies must bow at the last day. The regenerate bodies must bow in the time of Grace. For Grace doth owe her knees to Iesus. And her knees are not in her heart but thereby gouern'd. Hence it is, that good Christians doe bow at the name of Iesus, testifying thereby that Iesus is the Lord, that died the death of the Crosse to saue sinners. And therefore with retribution of hearty thankes, for that supervaluable benefit, we praise Iesus the exalted, with heart, and knee at once. And the Lord Iesus giue vs grace ever to bow, & such safety therein, that we neuer be hindred by Puritan, or Papist. Now obserue, whether M ^r Prinne doth come nigh the meaning of Philip: 2. 9. 10. 11. verses, as they haue reverēce, to the 5. 6. 7. 8▪ & that 'tis not the meaning of the text, that our knees shall bow at the name of Iesus in time of divine service, seeing he doth not vse these argumēts. 1. Because Iesus did not deserue this honour of bowing. 2. That God did not giue Iesus this honour, being dead. 3. That God hath not commanded vs to bow at the name of Iesus, although Iesus hath deserued more then knee-honour. 4. That Iesus did not deserue so vniversally for every member of our bodies, that the knee must giue him honour. 5. That Iesus was not the only vilified name of the Lord. 6. That there ought to be no bowing at the name of Iesus in the time of Grace, but only in the time of Glory. (This he would make his friends belieue, but therin he hath deceiu'd them). 7. That the time of of bowing is vtterly separated from the time of the tongues confessing, that Iesus is the Lord, if the time be the time of the practise of grace in the Temple. Hence I pray you obserue, that M ^r Prinne hath corrupted the text, with false, and by-suppositions: that he hath secretly wounded his private friends; and encouraged others to be obstinate Schismatiques. [Page 40] But will not the Gentl. vnderstand? Must ignorance, and presumption, prescribe to establish'd doctrine, and discipline? I pray to Iesus, that that day may never be. Away with imperious Puritanisme, and behold his arguments exactly confuted.

Objection.

Iesus is not the name aboue every name, vnderstood at Philip. 2. 10. For the name aboue every name was giuen to Iesus after the exaltation. But Iesus, this name was giuen by God the Father vnto Christ, before his natiuity, or conception. Matth. 1. 21. 25. Luc. 2. 21.

Solution.

Iesus his name was giuen him twise: once till death: afterwards for euer: first as a note of entring into covenant with God the iust Iudge, to fullfill the law for vs, & to die for our sinnes: secondly as a note of so Meritorious a person, more rewarded, more exalted, then any person euer hath or shall be magnified. First Iesus was the humble name of the only deserving Grace. Now Iesus is the exalted name of transcendent Glory. The Iewes did crucifie Iesus, and his name; and the Apostles did then distrust, whether Iesus was the true Iesus: Luc. 24. 21. All the Disciples did forsake him, they did fly from him: Matth: 26. 56. S ^t Peter did curse, and sweare, that he did not knowe him. v. 74. And was not this a death of Iesus his name, which before was admired among the people? Matth: 4: 24. But behold God hath raised this same Iesus from death, his day of resurrection is his glorious Birthday: Psal. 2. 7. Because Iesus was crucified to saue sinners: therefore God hath highly exalted him, and giuen him his name Iesus againe. Although his name was dash'd out with the shamelesse scornes of the High Priests, and people of the Iewes: Yet God hath giuen Iesus the same name, with letters of the greatest honour: therefore at the name of Iesus every knee shall bow. Here are two reasons, why Iesus his name was giuen him twise. The former that he should be our Iustifying, Sanctifying, and saving Surety: thus those texts signifie [Page 41] Matth. 1. 21. 25. Luc. 2. 21. The latter, that he shalbe acknowledged to be our Exalted Lord the King of Kings: Because God hath thus rewarded his most deseruing humility. Therefore at Philip. 2. 9. 10. 11. we read that his name Iesus is aboue every name. Note then that Master Prinne hath not disputed according to the time of giuing Iesus his name at Philip. 2. which is the time of Iesus his Exaltation, but according to the time of Iesus his humility, which is at Matt. 1. &c. There is not a Father, but he doth teach, that Iesus is exalted, and that therefore hee is exalted, because hee died the death of the crosse. See the 318. Bishops of the Councell of Nice against Arius, and the 200. Bishops of the Councell of Ephesus against Nestorius. Dominus noster Iesus Christus est in gloria Patris, licet Arianis id ipsum non videatur.—Caro per verbum Dei glorificata est. Factus est homo, vt nos in seipso Deificaret: Athanasius in his Epistle to Adelphius his Brother Contra Arianos. pag. 69. The 5. 6. 7. 8. verses of Philip. 2. speake of Iesus his humility: but the 9. 10. 11. speake of his glory: that his humanity is exalted: that it did receaue the All glorious reward of Iesus his deity, being a cause of his Exaltation. Athanasius Orat. 2 ^a, contra Arianos pag. 100. 101. 102. In the time of his humility he was taken to be nothing els, but a man: but now hee is acknowledged to be God ouer all things, blessed for euer. Rom. 9. This is S ^t Ambrose note on the Text. The Iewes dishonour'd him, as he was the Sonne of God. If thou be the Sonne of God, Come downe from the Crosse, and we will belieue in the: for this scorne to the death, God made Iesus fairer than the sonnes of men? this is S ^t Augustins note on psal. 103. By reason of his humility God exalted Iesus aboue the Angells: To that purpose S ^t Hierome writeth on Philip. 2. In extremis temporibus, propter salutem nostram verus Deus factus verus Homo humiliauit seipsum, & ideo dicitur Exaltari, non secundum verbi naturam, sed secundum incarnationis mysterium. D. Cyril. Thesauri lib. 8. pag. 99. Because Iesus humbled himselfe therefore hee is exalted; [Page 42] but not so, as if his Godhead were made greater in essence, or in the glory of his Maiesty, than in the beginning: but he being made man for vs, and for our saluation, hee wills, and commands all Creatures to honour him most of all, as he is Exalted Iesus. The Heretique Eunomius can say, that humility is a cause of his Exaltation, and that by the Grace of vnion Iesus his humility did deserue Exaltation: although he would not confesse, that Iesus is God. Crux triumphus erat. S. Cypriā in expositione symboli Apostolorū. The crosse was the cause of Iesus his Exaltation Quid humiliar [...]? An non vituperari? an non accusari? & Calumnijs pet [...]? Quid vero Exaltari? Nonne honorari? Laudari? in magna gloria esse? D. Chrisost: in Philip. 2. in morali Digressione. Because Iesus was humbled, suffering scornes, false accusations &c: therefore he was Exalted with honour, and praise, and great glory. These reuilings did cause Iesus his name, which was giuen him at his natiuity, to be a new name, a new Exalted name: but not so new, as if Iesus was not before that time Iesus his imposed name: but Exalted Iesus that name so much honoured was neuer impos'd on him till his Exaltation. Postquam Crucem sustinuit Rursum Exaltatum dicit &c. so the Acts of the Councell of Ephesus pag. 915. collected by Nicholinus. First Iesus was crucified, and then he was restored and Exalted. Had M ^r Prinne obseru'd this Connexion of humility and exaltation: he might easily haue discerned, that his arguments are nothing to the Purpose. M ^r Prinne obserues the humility of Iesus, hee hath no regard of Iesus his Exaltation, and therefore hee hath foure arguments more, not much differing, to prooue that Iesus is the name of our Sauiours humility.

Obiection. 1.

This name Iesus was giuen to our Sauiour principally in regard of his humiliation, and passion. Therefore Iesus is not his name of Exaltation.

Solution.

This name Iesus was principally giuen to our Saviour: [Page 43] nay, only this name was giuen him to vndergoe a Iust, and holy Suretiship for vs. Matt. 1. Luc. 2. doe proue thus much: that Iesus should saue his people from their sinnes: and this Suretiship Iesus hath perform'd with all humility. S ^t Paule is witnesse: Thus, He made himselfe of no reputation, and tooke on him the forme of a seruant, and was made like vnto man and was found in shape as a man. He humbled himselfe and became obedient vnto the death, euen the death of the Crosse. Philip. 2. 6. 78 But what did God neuer intend to exalt the same Iesus? Doth the Text say so? Did God intend according to the Text, neuer to reward him for his Supermeritorious obedience? M ^r Prinne is deceaued: the same text hath conuicted him for an Ignoramus, For the 9 ^th verse sayth. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him. What is the meaning of. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him? This: Because Iesus was obedient to the death, euen the death of the Crosse, therefore God hath highly exalted him, and giuen him a name aboue euery name. What name is that? IESVS is that name. How can you tell? Thus: At the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow. Then we may see, that Iesus is the name, before a name of humility, but now 'tis the only exalted name of our Blessed Sauiour. Iesus is not his name, which doth exalt him: Those names are titles of honour: viz. King of Kings, Lord of Lords. Revel. 19. 16. Head of the Church. Ephe. 2. but Iesus is his exalted name, his most honoured name. The Lord Iesus was more vilified, than all the Lords names: therefore 'tis most honoured, highly exalted, only this name Iesus: so the most Reuerend Arch Bishop, Doctor Whitgift: the right Reuerend Bishop Andrewes, Zanchius &c. But negatur argumentum is sufficiēt answeare to so poore an argument. For what Christian is he, that doth not beleiue, that he shalbe glorified for the merits sake of Christ Iesus? And then is not Iesus the name of Personall couenant with God, exalted? And being exalted, 'tis a new name: new for honour, though not new for letters. This is Master Prinnes second arguments resolution. [Page 44] But see how hee loues this argument, hee alleageth three reasons moe.

Obiection. 1.

Iesus his proper name giuen him at his Incarnation is not his name of Exaltation. But Iesus is his proper name giuen him at his Incarnation. Matth. 1. Therefore Iesus is not his name of Exaltation.

Solution.

This Argument, and the first according to the sense of the Text are the same: and here is a false maior. Some thing is supposed, but nothing is prooued: yet see, what our Sauiour hath sayd in his owne cause. 'Tis our Sauiours humble petition. Thus: These words spake Iesus, and lift vp his eies to heauen, and sayd, Father the houre is come, Glorify thy Sonne. Iohn. 17. 1. Can any Christian say truely, that God did not glorify Iesus his Sonne? 'Tis impossible. Who then is glorifyed? Apte respondetur. Iesus the Sonne of God is glorifyed. Demand at whose name euery knee shall bow? Apte respondetur: this answeere is the text. At the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow.

Obiection. 2.

Iesus is the name of his passion: so the Evangelists. Iesus is the name of the very lowest degree of his humiliation. Philip. 2. 8. Therefore Iesus is not the name aboue euery name.

Solution.

This doth not prooue, that Iesus is not Iesus, not exalted Iesus after his resurrection: that Iesus was not made a new name by honours. I haue so many witnesses to prooue, that this name Iesus is a new name in honours after the resurrection, as there are tongues in the world: except Prinns tongue and his complices, and one day They must beare witnesse. For all tongues shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord Philip. 2. 11. Now demand, who is the exalted Lord? All tongues must confesse that Iesus is the exalted Lord: the text is evident. The Evangelists called him Iesus after the resurrection. Iesus came, and spake vnto them saying, all power is [Page 45] giuen vnto me Math. 28. 18. He did rise vp Iesus. Mar. 16. 9. After the resurrection Iesus blessed the Apostles. Lue. 24. 36. Then Iesus ordained the Apostles to be the Preachers of the Gospell in all the world. Ioh. 20. 22. 23. and the Lord Iesus gaue them missiue authority to be the Catholique Bishops: Or els let any Anti-disciplinatian tell mee, why S ^t Peter taught at Act: 1. from the 15. to the 23. vers. that one of our Sauiours Disciples must be chosen into Iudas his place. The Apostles did call Iesus. Iesus, and honoured him for their only Lord and Master after the resurrection. S. Paule writes, that he is the servant of the Lord Iesus in his Epistles: so doth S. Peter: and so S. Iames, and S. Iude: every Apostle is the seruant of Iesus Christ our Lord. And yet Iesus is not the exalted name among Non-Conformists: but they cannot truely say that they are seruants of any higher Lord. And if they persist in their obstinacy, they will prooue to be no servants of this Lord Iesus.

Obiection. 3.

The name aboue every name is the of Souereignty, and glory. But Iesus is not the name of Soureignty, and glory: for Iesus is the name written on the crosse, over his head to shew the cause of his death.

Solution.

The psalmist saith, that God will take the poore out of the dust, & set them with princes, even with princes of his people. As for example, God did take Dauid from the sheepfold, and made him the King of Israel. Is not this true, because Dauid was a poore shepheard? Doe you belieue the 78 psal▪ 32? The comparison holds. Iesus was so execrable in the eies of Iewes, that they did crucify him, and hang him on a tree. And Pilate wrot a title, and put it on the crosse: IESƲS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE IEWES. Ioh. 19. 19. What is Iesus therefore not the name of Souereingnety? God hath highly exalted him, & giuen him a name aboue euery name. Phil. 2. 9. 10. 11. Pilate & the Iewes exalted Iesus his name with scorne: God therefore hath Magnified his with [Page 46] the greatest honour; thus Iesus is the name of Souereignety, and glory

Obiection 3

This is M ^r Prinnes generall Thirdly, and a confirmation of the former argument. A patching disputant. Thus then he: The name aboue euery name is the name of the Kingdome, Royalty, Maiesty, and vniuersall Dominion of Christ ouer Angels, men, and deuills: Philip. 2 9. But Iesus is not the name of Kingdome, Royalty, Maiestie, and vniversal Dominion of Christ ouer Angels, men and Deuills. For this name Iesus denotes only the Priesthood. Heb▪ 3. 9. 17. Heb. 3. 1. Heb. 4. 14. Heb. 6. 20. and so S. Bernard in his 15 sermon on the Canticles.

Solution

M ^r Prinne would adde this word (only) to Heb. 2. 3. 4. 6. c. to prooue that Iesus is only the High Priest. But it is good for him to take heed, that he adde not a word to alter the sense of holy scripture. Reuel: 22. 18. and S ^t Bernard doth not say Iesus is not King of glorie, in his 15 sermon on the Canticles, an encouraging sermon of Salvation; he is better skilled in modalities then to call a plaine simple positiue sense, exclusiue; which is to say; because Heb: 2 &c: teach that Iesus is our high Priest: therefore Iesus is only our high Priest, and not at all the Almightie King aboue vs, not the great prophet before vs. But see Act. 3. 15: and then Iesus is not only the high Priest; for there he is [...], the King, or Prince of life. See Luc. 24. 19. & there he is a Prophet mightie in word, & in deede. Esa: 9. 6. 7. doth teach that he is God, the Prince of peace, and King. These three offices were diversely manifested by him to the Church. At the 6. cap: of S ^t Ioh. vers: 15: then he would not be made a King. A good note to teach him to be a Priest in all humility, who is called by himselfe Seruus servorum. When Pilate examined our B. Lord Iesus, as one guilty of treason against Cesar: then he would not manifest his Kings office. His answere was most humble, not like the command of a King: but as [Page 47] he did exercise his office of a Prophet, so he did manifest himselfe. Thus: to this end was I borne, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should beare witnes vnto the truth; and my Kingdome is not of this world, Ioh: 18. 36. 37. His offring himselfe vp to bee the sacrifice for our sinnes, did manifest Iesus to be our everlasting priest Heb: 10. 12. But till after his resurrection did Iesus manifest himselfe to be the vniuersall Monarch? Then he made it manifest to the Eleuen, that all Power was giuen him in heaven, and earth. Matth. 28. Then S ^t Iohn proclam'd his titles of honour, King of kings, and Lord of lords. Revel: 19: 16: and at Philip. 2. 9: 10: 11. S ^t Paule publisheth the honour, which God hath giuen him: A name aboue every name, and the honour, which every Creature ought to giue vnto his name: This: At the name of Iesus every knee shall how, of things in heauen, of things in the earth. And is Iesus only a Priest then, though he be the only high Priest? Or is Iesus a Priest in the Quatenus of Iesus a king? Where then be his three offices? Or must Iesus a king, be subject to Iesus a Priest? Why then is he styl'd King of kings, rather then Priest of priests? Or must he be King, who is Priest, and so the successor of Melchisedeck, in being King and Priest, as he was? Heb. 7: 1: Iesus is both King, and Priest, Heb 7: but he hath no successor. Let Papists, and Puritans exactly consider the 23, and 24 verses of Heb. 7: and the Popes supremacy must evidently appeare to be nothing, and the Puritans all equall to the Pope, exalting themselues aboue the King, must necessarily be lay'd in the dust. Our Saviour hath made it plaine Luc. 22: that no Apostles should be so great men in authority as Kings, when the Sonnes of Zebedee would haue been aboue their fellowes.

Objection. 4.

That is the name to be bowed at, which every tongue shall confesse to be Iesus. But every tongue cannot confesse Iesus to be Iesus: For Iesus is no Iesus to Angels. Heb. 2. 16. nor to devills. Matth. 7. 22. 23. nor to damned spirits Rom. 9. 27.

[Page 48]

Solution.

Iesus is not a redeeming Iesus to Angels: so Heb. 2. 16: but a confirming Iesus. Eph. 1. 10: not a redeeming, nor a confirming Iesus to devills, but a Commanding Iesus, Iesus casting out Devills. Matth. 7. 22. 23. Iesus that hath damned spirits vnder him, all things in subiection vnder his feete. 1. Cor. 15. Zanchius saith, that our Saviour is a confirming Iesus to good Angels for fiue reasons, vpon 1 Chap. Ephe: verse 10. pag. 19. And the exalted Iesus he is, farre aboue all Principality, Power, Vertue, Dominion, and every name, that is nam'd, not only in this world, but in the world to come. Ephes. 1. 21. And he hath put all things in subiection vnder his feete verse. 22. The devills haue confess'd Iesus to be Iesus: This is the Legions speech. I knowe who thou art, Iesus the Sonne of the most high. Matth. 8. Mar. 5, Luc. 8, The devills are made to knowe already, that Iesus is their Lord, and governour. Iesus hath trivmphed over them, when he was nayl'd to the Crosse. Coloss. 2. 15. He led captiuity captiue. Ephe. 4. And therefore the devills, and the damned Reprobates knowe, that they must be governed by Iesus their commanding Lord: and that thus He is Iesus to them.

Objection, 5.

The name at which every knee must bow is aboue every name, but this name Iesus is not aboue every name.

Solution.

This argument of Super-excellency is M ^r Prinnes Thirdly last past, and hauing lost himselfe in Methode, he hath 4. arguments more, to prooue that Iesus is not the name aboue every name. And though this he can neuer prooue, yet see his contradicting zeale, how it talkes.

Objection, 1.

Iesus is not a name aboue Ioshua: for he is Iesus. Heb. 4. 8. Act. 7. 45. And Iesus the sonne of Sirach is Iesus▪ Therefore Iesus is not the name aboue every name.

Solution.

Now M ^r Prinne is runne away from the meaning of phil, [Page 49] 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: or else let him say, that either Ioshua, or Iesus the sonne of Sirach is here vnderstood, if he hath not digressed from this Text: or that they are equall to exalted Iesus: for the name is correspondent to the person signified in signification, and merit. But see a great difference, This Iesus is God and man: so the text. Philip. 2: but they are not Gods, but Creatures of this Iesus here vnderstood. This Iesus had no Father of his humanitie. Heb: 7. but they were begotten of naturall Parents. This Iesus not guiltie of any sinne committed by his owne Person, died to saue sinners: but they were sinners, guiltie of sinne: & they had not continued Iesus, if the Lord Iesus had not protected them. This I sus is rewarded, because hee died for sinners. He is exalted, magnified, honoured, aboue every other Iesus: a good Christiā may easily know him, because he puts his whole trust in him, and therefore the Equiuocation of the name Iesus is not now ambiguous, being so manifestly distinguished into persons knowne so much to differ.

Obiection. 2. & 3.

Iesus is not the name aboue every name. Secondly because Iesus is his name of Incarnation, humiliation, and debasement. Thirdly because Iesus imports not vniuersal power, and Souereignty of Christ over all Creatures.

Solution.

This Secondly is twise a First argument before: twise Secondly. This Thirdly is twise Thirdly in this question: and once Fiftly. So the one is disputed fiue times ouer, and the other foure times. A foolish woman vseth this prating Immethody a frequent repeating of the same thing: verbum Sat sapienti. A wise man is no Babbler.

Obiection. 4

Iesus is not the name aboue every name: for the scripture prefers other names before Iesus. What names? These: his name, and Title of Lord. 1. Tim. 1, 1. Of King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. 1 Tim. 6. 15. So good authors say, that those names are aboue the name of Iesus.

[Page 50]

Solution.

This argument of Souereignty was disputed foure times before. But still Iesus is the exalted name aboue every name. Thus. Who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords? Apte respondetur: Iesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. Revel: 19. 1 Tim. 6, 15. And that you may know, that this is true, see his name: tis written on his thigh: you will belieue your owne eies. S ^t Thomas did, Ioh 20. and so must every S ^t. P. B. N. C. Whatsoeuer his name be, Iesus is exalted: therefore Iesus his name is aboue every name: read Philip. 2, without partiality: If M ^r W. Prinne were exalted aboue all Iustices of Peace: hee would vndoubtedly belieue that W. Prinnes name is aboue the rest. But it is against his stomack, that Iesus exalted aboue every name, that this name should be said, and worshipped aboue every name. Wilfulnesse is a masterlesse sinne. Take this for a note that there is nomen exaltans vt Deus; nomen, quod est exaltatio, vt Rex Regum, & nomen exaltatum, vt Iesus. There is Iesus his name, which is his reward, or his exaltation: This name of his is King of kings, and Lord of Lords. God is his rewarding name. And Iesus is his name, which is rewarded, exalted aboue every name: and thus this proposition is true: Iesus is the name aboue every name, so the text. All tongues must confesse, that Iesus Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father. And seeing all tongues must confesse, what saith M. Prinne to this? Hee hath fiue reasons to proue this first argument against the text: He is not for the meaning of Philip. 2. 10.

Obiection 1.

The name aboue euery name is a name of Souereigne Power and Authority. But Iesus is not a name of Souereigne Power, and Authority &c.

Solution.

This Argument is fiue times disputed already. Me thinks, one argument once disputed is sufficient for one: therefore I suppose Master Prinne had many priuate freinds to helpe him, and euery one hath pawnde his life, that this argument [Page 51] is vnanswearable, and therefore it must be repeated on all the Puritans credits ioyntly, to cry downe Philip 2, 10. and the 18 ^th Canon, or else they shall not be the Masters of Israel. But marke well this answeare. Apte respondere ad Quaestionem factam per Quid, Master Prinne did learne to be the rule to know an Essentiall Proposition. Apte respondere ad Quaestionem factam per Cur sit, it seemes, he did not learne to be the Rule, to know a Demonstratiue proposition. Thus then let him learne, why is Iesus his name exalted aboue euery name? Apte Respondetur. Because Iesus made himselfe of no reputation, and tooke on him the shape of a seruant, and was found in shape, as a man; hee humbled himselfe vnto the death of the Crosse. Is this the cause, why Iesus his name is aboue euery name? The text sayth the same. Thus; Therefore God hath highly Exalted him, and giuen him a name aboue euery name. Philip. 2, 9. Doth Master Prinne vnderstand? A weake disputant to confute Bishop Andrewes, Doctor Boyes, Zanchius, Master Hooker, Master Adams,

Objection. 1.

Iesus did die to purchase the name aboue euery name. So Act. 2. from the 32. to the 37.

Solution.

Iesus then did deserue to bee King of Kings and Lord of Lords: and so Iesus is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. This is true: and Master Prinne hath confessed this to bee truth. He calles to witnesse that excellent full place. Act: 2. from the 32. to the 37. Iesus is now Exalted. Therefore let all the House of Israel assuredly know, that the same Iesus, whom the Iewes crucified, is both Lord, and Christ. Master Prinne then proues that Iesus is both Lord, and Christ: so here is Prinne an Anti-Prinne.

Obiection 3.

The name a boue euery name doth fully expresse the deity and humanity of Christ. But this name Iesus doth not fully expresse the deity, and humanity of Christ. For Iesus [Page 52] is not Lord by name: and Lord is the name of the deity of Christ. Psal. 110. 1. Act. 2. 32. &c.

Solution.

Iesus is both God and man. This is the 2. Article of the Primitiue faith, and of our Reformed faith. The Arians deny, that Iesus is God nomine, & re. The Manichees, and others deny, that Iesus is man. But if Master Prinne will not belieue our Churches faith: let him learne of the good theife, that was hang'd on the Crosse, who then prayed thus to Iesus, Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy kingdome Luc. 23. 42. And how was Iesus then Lord to the theife, but according to the Godhead? Thus the theife called Iesus Lord: and according to the Godhead Iesus answear'd the theife. This day Thou shalt be with me in Paradise.

Obiection 4.

The name aboue euery name hath reference to all, to Deuills, to the damned. But Iesus is not Iesus to them.

Solution.

This Fourthly is a Fourthly before: a fourth reason of Master Prinnes second Argument, that Iesus is not the name intended at Philip. 2. 10. and there you may see that Iesus is exalted aboue all, and the Commanding Iesus of Devils and Reprobats: although he be not a sauing Iesus to them.

Obiection. 5.

Every tongue shall confesse that Iesus is the Lord. Therefore Lord is the name in the Text: and so say all Orthodoxe Interpreters &c. but Bishop Andrewes.

Solution.

That Lord is the name aboue euery name is the General Argument of these fiue last reasons, & very oft repeated: a signe of much violence. But moderately let Master Prinne demand according to Philip. 2. 11. Who is the Lord? And the text will answeare him, that every tongue shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord. So 'tis apparent, that Master Prinne did neuer vnderstand Orthodoxe Bishop Andrewes. nor other [Page 53] Orthodoxe Interpreters, as hereafter you may read.

Obiection. 2.

After the Excellency of Iesus a superlatiue name, being exalted aboue every name, Master Prinne is come to a Secondly, and sayth: That this name The only begotten Sonne of God is the name aboue euery name. Thus: 'Tis peculiar only to Christ. Heb: 1. 5. A name more Excellent than any name of men, and Angels. verse 4, 5. declaratiuely, giuen to the Person of Christ after his Resurrection. Rom: 1, 4. And therefore Theophylact, Anselme, Musculus, Aretius, and others say, that this is the name aboue every name.

Solution.

That Iesus is the one, and only begotten Sonne of God; 'tis the text: begotten before all worlds; 'tis the Councell of Nice▪ Greater in dignity, and nature, than men, and Angells: 'tis Heb: 1. and whether He were not declared to be the only begotten sonne of God, till after his Resurrection, aske the Holy Ghost at Matth: 3, vlt. Ioh: 3, 16. In Essence, and Person The only begotten Sonne of God is the greate name. But still only Iesus is the greatest deserving name vpon the Couenant of Circumcision, and Baptisme: and therefore Iesus is the only Exalted name aboue every name. That at the name of Iesus every knee shall bow. In this sense Theophylact &c. doe not deny, but Iesus is the name aboue every name. Non maior humiliatio, nec maior exaltatio fieri potest, so Anselme on Philip: 2. Iesus is exalted aboue all, because he was more humble than all the world. Iesus is exalted to be King of Heauen, and Earth: so Musculus on Philip. 2. And so Aretius on Matth: 28. Why? Because Iesus died for our sinnes. Therefore Iesus is the name aboue euery name; so Theophylact: So Master Prinne is deceau'd in his owne Aurhors.

Obiection 3.

These arguments taken from the compare of Iesus his seuerall Attributes are disputed in the 3. argument of the letter of the text. Yet the daring Attributist cannot choose, but [Page 54] come to repetitions. Thus: Emmanuel is the name aboue euery name. For this signifies Iesus to be God, equall to the Father, and the Holy Ghost; to be God with vs, to vs, and in our nature. And this then is the name in substance aboue every name:

Solution.

Then Emmanuel is in substance our Sauiours Greatest name. Without question Emmanuel signifies the greatest Substance in the world, which is God, and God incarnate. The Holy Ghost is witnes. Matth. 1. 23. But which was Iesus his name most Reviled, and exalted, and therefore aboue euery name? In that Relatiue sense Master Prinne is silent. And yet that is the meaning of Philip. 2. That therefore Iesus is exalted aboue euery personal deserving name: because his person was most dishonoured in the name of Iesus. Master Prinne might haue learned this note of learned Bishop Andrewes, if he had in him True Christian humility, to follow so worthy a Guyde: whose note it is, that all the Fathers except Origen vpon Philip. 2. say: that Iesus his most deseruing humility is the cause, why Iesus is exalted aboue every name, and that so much, as that at the name of Iesus every knee shall bow: and on chap. 2. of Saint Luke, and Rom: 14. there Origen sayth that we must Bow at the name of Iesus, because he was humble.

Obiection 4.

Intercessor is the name, which Iesus hath gained since his exaltation, to sit on his Fathers Right hand, & intercede for vs, 1. Tim: 2, 5. Therefore this is the name aboue euery name.

Solution

By baptisme Iesus was bound to bee our Intercessor, to fulfill all righteousnesse. Matth: 3. And he still liueth to make Intercession for vs by his prayers. Heb: 7, 23, 24. This then is the doctrine of that text: That Iesus is the All Glorius Priest, a glorified Intercessor: In this world he was the gracious Intercessor, the deseruing Mediator, and therefore he is now preferred to be the glorious Intercessor. This argumēt smels [Page 55] of Popery. For Iesus our high Priest, as intercessor is not Souereigne Lord of the Church Triumphant, and militant, but Iesus as King of kings, and Lord of Lords: at whose exalted name Iesus every knee shall bow. This is that Iesus, whom the 4 Beasts cease not to worship day, and night, saying Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, which is, and which is to come: Before whome the 23 Elders fall downe, and worship, and cast their Crownes before his Throne. Revel. 4. 8. 9. 10. This is He, to whom the kings of the earth shall bring their glory, and honour. Revel. 21. 24. Yet the Puritans suppose his name Iesus to be but a nominal consisting of fiue letters. What pretending simple ones are these, and yet they are very malitious, to accuse our Church for worshipping this bare Articulate Iesus, as if they were the fiue letters, to whom we bow, and whom we confesse to be the Lord.

Objection. 5.

The highest name is supremacy. But Iesus is not supremacy. The head of the Church is supremacy. Ephes. 1. 20. 21.

Solution.

Iesus is head of the Church. Ephes. 1, 20, 21. He is supreame commander: a supremacy aboue heauen, and earth. Iesus is called (Wonderfull) in his works. Counsellor in the lawes of heauen. The mighty God in his Omnipotence. The everlasting Father: for he is the resurrection, and the life restoring the dead. The Prince of peace: for he hath reconciled God, and sinners. The blessed: For he is all glory. The only Potentate: for he is the only cōmanding Lord. Emmanuel, the only begottē sonne of God, The King of kings; all Creatures are his subjects: The Lord of Lords: for all are his servants. He is the head of the Church: for the Church is his body, which he makes to liue, to moue, and to be in essence. Is Iesus so great a governour, and commander, and hath he humbled himselfe to saue sinners, and will some refuse to bow at the name of Iesus, being therevnto commanded? Are our knees bless'd, our heads, our soules, and bodies, because Iesus died the death of the Crosse? And shall not we honour Iesus with [Page 56] all manner of honour, internall, and externall? Imperious ingratitude! The bowing of the outward man is a lesser duty, then bowing of the inward man. He then that will not performe the lesser, may very well bee suspected for neglecting the greater duty. He that is so stiffe in the knee, and so heady in the hat, is masterles at the heart. Iesus is no Master, no Lord, no King ouer such. These are the men, whom no Lord must controll, psal: 12. These will rather breake, than bow: Away with such vnsufferable contumacy.

Objection. 6.

Here is vnderstood Lord, only Lord to be the name aboue euery name, which runnes in the Genitiue case. And every tongue shall confesse, that Iesus is the Lord: and this is the opinion of the ancient, and moderne Commentators on this Text: and Iesus is the Genitiue case, which denotes the person of Iesus.

Solution.

This Genitiue case-argument is answer'd at the 2 argument concerning the letrer of the text. That Lord is the only name here vnderstood is twise disputed before in this Question at a fourthly & fiftly. But let M ^r Prinne note, whether this proposition be true: Iesus is the Lord: and being graunted to be true, let him say, if he can, which is the nomen significans, which is the subiect of the proposition: if Iesus be not. And 'tis certaine that Iesus is the highest personall name for merit: That King of Kings and Lord of Lords are his titles of honour: and that every knee must not bow to the titles of Honour, but to the most Renown'd Person: and so not at those names, but at this proper personall name once revil'd. For only Iesus is the Finis cui, the personall end of bowing.

Here note that Master Prinne hath sayde all this, to contradict Iesus, the Personal End, for whose honours sake we bow at his name Iesus in time of diuine seruice: for rewards, or titles of honour receaue not honour, for they are honours giuen. Now in that, which followes, he would make [Page 57] his private friends belieue, that he will teach the reall meaning of the text, or else he hath forgotten himselfe, this being a Question concerning the meaning of Philip, 2. different from the literall meaning, which is a part of the letter, if the letter hath any signification. And I belieue, that he is on the literall meaning here at this part of his Appendix. For there are tres species three kindes of the dictionall, or literall meaning: this is true metaphysically, according to participation of essence, though the vulgar division Entis rationis in scripturis, of the written word of God be literall, and figuratiue. These are the three species: 1. is grammaticall: 2. is rhetoricall, whereof metaphoricall is a part, 3. is logicall. Only metaphoricall bowing at the name of Iesus, He sayth, is vnderstood at Philip: 2, 10. This dispute beginnes at a Secondly, which hath no reference to a First place, expressed in the Appendix. This is to dispute sine capite without an head. But is bowing at the name of Iesus metaphoricall, figuratiue, and so dictionall? Certainely 'tis reall: for 'tis essentiall, a reall subordination of the knee to a religious heart in the state of grace: and in the time of glory euery knee, spirituall, and corporeall shall really bow. Besides this reall essence, Bowing at the name of Iesus depends on reall causes. The 1. is Gods command, which requires the Church to bow, for all knees are commanded, which are the knees of things in heaven, of things in the earth &c: then bowing &c. is lawfull. The 2. is Iesus his merit, which is the Holy Ghosts reason, and 'tis a necessary reason, because 'tis iust, that Iesus bee rewarded with all honour, and therefore with knee-honour. The 3. is the loue, and honour, and glory of Iesus, which we owe to him; this is the end of bowing, which makes it commendable. Master Prinne then must be followed, in his owne way, that essentiall, and demonstratiue arguments may overtake him, and binde him to his good behauiour, because he sayth, that this bowing at the name of Iesus is metaphoricall. But our knees are not metaphoricall, but substances, corporeall, organicall, and obedient. He sayth, [Page 58] that bowing &c. is one, and the same in all creatures: and yet all haue not knees alike. He sayth, that bowing &c. is subiection of all creatures to Iesus at the last day, only at the last day. But our Church doth now testify, that Iesus is the Lord now in the time of grace with bowing of the knee: and is this a sinne against any law of God? Obstante Prinne, this is a duty of the text.

Objection. 7.

This kind of bowing in Philip 2. 10. is metaphoricall. For 'tis not the externall Ciuill Reverence, which is due only to man. Gen. 19, 2. & 33, 6, 7. &c. 2 ^ly this bowing is not diuine worship or Adoration, which is due only to God. Gen. 18, 2. & 24, 26, 48. 3 ^ly nor is it praier, which we performe with bended knees. Psal: 95. 6. Eph: 3. 14. For the Deuills, the damned, and Infidels doe not adore, nor pray to Iesus. But this bowing is the bowing of all things Philip: 2. 10. of all things in Heauen, and Earth, and vnder the Earth. And what can that be, but the subiection of creatures to Christ at the last day, aboue whom he is exalted. The last day is only the time, when Philip: 2. 10. shalbe literally fulfilled. Therefore 'tis only that Subiection, therefore 'tis a metaphoricall bowing.

Solution.

This Argument is 5 ^th argument of the letter of the text: & twise a fourthly in this Question. But here note that this bowing at the name of Iesus, now Questioned is externall diuine worship in our Church; 'tis adoration: and now Master Prinne may know what kinde of bowing, bowing at the name of Iesus is. There is adoration inward and outward at Esay 45, 23. & at Rom: 14. 11. Esay 45. is not vnderstood of bowing at the last day: for there the text teacheth Gods people to forsake Idols, and bow, or giue worship to him. But when? not till the last day? Rom: 14. 10. teacheth, that we must all stand before Gods Iudgment seat, that he only is Iudge, and therefore we must not Iudge one an other: at the 11. vers, that we worship him, because he is the Lord. [Page 59] And Philip. 2. teacheth the merit of Iesus rewarded. How? that every kneeshall bow at the name of Iesus. Therefore the Church hauing learned her duty, that now Iesus is to bee acknowledged to be the King farre aboue all dominion, Principality, and Power, she bowes the knee with all humity, and reverence, to manifest her bounden duty, and to testify, that it is Gods command, that he be more honoured in the name of Iesus, than in any other name of his. This is the reason of vayling, and bowing the knee at the exalted name Iesus. 'Tis easy to be deduc'd from Philip: 2, and more, than at Esay, 45. and Rom: 14, and therefore wee must bow more, than is requir'd by these texts. But how that can be, see the vncouering of the Head, and bowing of the knee, not only at praier, but at reading, and preaching our faith, which is in the Lord Iesus. Philip: 2. teacheth that we must be humble in the practice of grace, and how we must be humble: That we must bow at the name of Iesus. That text teacheth the Philippians, that all knees must bow. And then ought not that Church, and euery Church collect this doctrine; That the knees of the Church vniuersall must bow at the name of Iesus? Saint Paule did not teach the Philippians: that they should not bow till the last day: but his words are, that they should be presently humble verse the 5. Neither did hee teach them, that their knees were Angels knees, which doe now bow in Heauen. Revel. 4: but that all things must bow their owne knees; and therefore the militant Church must bow her knees, at the name of the Lord Iesus. The Diuils doe bow, for they haue their bounds, which they cannot passe. It were answere sufficient, to deny, that all creatures bow in the same particular, or proper way. And that they must only bow at the last day, the 15 scriptures which M. Prinne hath alleadged, doe not proue. Rom. 14, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12. doe not teach that all, creatures must only bow at the last day. Nor Eph. 1, 20, 21, 22. nor Revel. 1, 7. nor Revel. 5. from ver. 8, to the end of the chapter. nor Revel. 20, 11. 12. 13. nor Matth. 28. 18. nor 1 Cor. 15. v. [Page 60] 24, 25, 27, 28. nor Heb. 2. 7, 8: nor 1 Pet. 3, 22. nor Ioh. 17. 2: nor Acts 10. 36. nor Coloss. 1. 17, 18. nor 1 Cor. 8, 5, 6. nor Esay 45, 22, 23. nor Daniel 7. 14. Not one of these, nor any other Scripture saith, that the Church and all other creatures must bow at the name of the Lord Iesus only at the last day. It is a common saying that a Puritan will not sweare; and why he should falsify these 15 Scriptures, no man can giue any Godly Christian reason.

And he hath not only falsified the Scriptures, that all creatures shall bow at the name of Iesus only at the last day, but also the Fathers, and others. These: Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, S ^t Cyprian, Origen, Athanasius, S ^t Hilary, Theophilus Antiochenus. S ^t Basill, Nazianzen, Greg. Nyssen, S. Ambrose. S ^t Hierome, S ^t Cyrill of Hierusalem, S ^t Chrysostome, S ^t Augustine, Theophilus Alexandrinus, Primasius, Sedulius, Rhemigius, Beda, Haymo, Anselme, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Paulus Orosius, Leo, Chrysologus, Fulgentius, S ^t Damascen, Isidor. Hispalensis, S ^t Bernard, Pope Caius, Surius, Iohn 2 Pope, Synod of Francford vnder Adrian, Alexander Alensis, Aelredus, Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Gorran, Bruno, Salmeron, Estius, Glossa Ordinaria, Lyra, Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, Marlorat, Zanchius, Gualter, Olevian, Beza, Aretius, Hyperius, Hunnius, Tyndall, D ^r Fulke, M ^r Cartwright, and D ^r Airay on Philip. 2. 10. Iunius, Ferus, Luther, Konigstein, Sarcerius, Avenarius, Matthaeus, Chrytaeus, D. Boyes, Cutbert Tonstall, B. Babington, D. Whitaker, M ^r Perkins, M ^r Charke D. Willet: here are 80 Authors, aut eo circiter. And is it not a shamelesse boldnesse to falsify so many, a signe of a brasen face, of an impudent Scribler. He saith that bowing is only at the last day, and that bowing at the name of Iesus is subiection, but not adoration. But M ^r Prinnes Authors say, that bowing at Philip. 2. is adoration; so S. Hierome and Oecumenius in Phil. 2. Omnes hominem simul adorent in Deum assumptum, and Primasius hath the same words: wee must altogether adore the humanity [Page 61] of Iesus assum'd vnto his Godhead. This Bowing is a figure intensae, & vehementis adorationis, of that perfect, and earnest adoration, when Angells bow to Iesus: D. Chrysost. hom. 32. in 1 Cor. 12. Tis follicitae, & humillimae adorationis indicium. Theophilus Alexandrinus in Epist. 2. Pascali in Bibliotheca Patrum 387. Margarinus. Bowing, &c. is a token of a solicitous and most humble praier. Adorabunt te, & in te orabunt, so S ^t Cyrill of Alexandria lib. 2. cap. 2. in Hesaiam, this bowing is adoration, and invocation. Humilis subiectio & adoratio, so Sedulius in Philip: tis subiection and adoration. A bowing with invocation, so Rhemigius. In in vocatione nominis Iesu, Haymo. Tis bowing in time of Prayer. Evidens signum subiectionis: humilitas & veneratio, so Anselme in Philip. 2. Tis an evident signe of subiection, humility and worship. In hoc nomine, deitatis tota adoratur maiestas. Chrysologus ser. 144. To bow at the name of Iesus, is the adoration of the whole Maiesty of God, because Iesus is the one and only God, therefore wee must bow, so Fulgentius in his 10 answere to the Arians obiection, Tis reverence, so Peter Lombard. Tis reverence or adoration so Thomas Aquinas. Tis divine worship, which by a synecdoche is called bowing with the knee, so Salmeron. Tis the glory of Christians, so S ^t Bernard in his ser. de passione Domini, pag. 57. Obtemperare, agnoscere, adorare, haecomnia genuum flexione hoc loco significantur. Sic parte è contraria, genua non flectere, est aliquem non colere, & habere Deum Dominum, so Avenarius de Christi exaltatione pag. 625. To bow, is to obey, acknowledge, to worship Iesus: not to bow is no worship, nor hauing him for their Lord God. Tis reuerence, which Angells and men ought to giue, &c. so Konigstein in Postilla in Dominica Palmarum. So then according to the essence of Bowing, tis not only subiection to Iesus at the last day: M ^r Prinnes Authors haue said this, though M. Prinne saith, that they teach bowing to be nothing but subiection at the last day.

2 This bowing is inward and outward worship: this [Page 62] S ^t Hieromes notable full place teacheth; although M. Prinnes marginall note doth seeme to proue the contrary. These are his words. Haec spiritualiter exponentes non statim iuxta literam, orandi consuetudinem tollimus, qua Deum genu posito suppliciter adoramus, & fixo in terram poplite: magis quod ab [...]oposcimus, impetramus. Legimus enim Paulum in littore sic [...]rasse, & geniculationes in oratione praeceptas: sed sicut illud aedificat simplices, sic veram geniculationem esse docemus in animo: quia multi Coporale flectentes genu, animae nequaquam poplitem curvaverunt. Et contra alij erecto Deum corpore deprecantes magis se animo curuaverunt. S. Hierome in Ephes. 3. Saint Hierome would that the simple be instructed to bow at praiers, as S. Paul did with soule and body, and not to bow the knee only, and not the heart: nor the heart only, and not the knee, as some haue beene accustomed. S. Chrisostome teacheth the same, Gloria omnino haec apud vos est, flecti genua, &c. S. Chrysostome commends the Heretiques for bowing the knee at the name of Iesus, and his desire is, that they should belieue and professe, that he is God Almighty, equall to the Father. S. Chrysostome in Phil. 2. Calvin, Musculus, Bullinger, Marlorat, Zanchius, &c, vpon the text, giue inward and outward worship to the Lord Iesus. So in the second place according to the two kinds of bowing, bowing with the knee at the name of Iesus, is proued to be religious according to more of Prinnes good Authors: But how they are good for him, he cannot be sensible nor intellectuall: for neither sence nor reason calls nothing at all (and so nothing to the purpose) a proofe; nor a false quotation, a true and good Authority.

3 Some of M. Prinnes authors giue the reason, why all knees must bow at the name of Iesus; propter meritum, & praemium, because Iesus hath deserued, and God hath rewarded his merit. Quid & quantum humilit as mereatur, ostendit. Si homo Deo Patri obedivit, quid magnum est, quod dixit Apostolus? Sed hoc magnum dicit, quia cum eo aequalis esset, obedivit S. Ambrose in Philip. 2. The text shewes what, & [Page 63] how much honour Iesus his humility deserues, & therefore is it too great an honour, that at the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow? The obedience is equall to that reward, because Iesus equall with God, did humble himselfe, & obey, Because Iesus was obedient, &c. Therefore the name aboue euery name was giuen. S. Aug. lib. 1. de Trinitate cap. 13. fol. 25. Iesus deserved, therefore hee was rewarded S. Aug. tract, 105. on S. Iohn. Quem Deus posuit Propitiatorem in sanguine suo, vt in nomine eius omne genu curvetur: so Paulus Orosius in Apolog. de Arbitrij libertate: in bibliotheca Patrum, pag. 148. H. N. because Iesus shed his blood for vs, therefore we must bow. Quia Dominus Iesus Christus est in gloria Patris, &c. Leo ser. 1. Mensis 10. & 6. ser. de ieiunio, 7 mensis. Iesus is glorified, therefore we bow: and not only for his glories sake, but also for his merits: Ser. 1. &c. So in Ser. 9. Cap. 2. in nativitate Domini, and in 11. decretali Epist. Meruit Exaltari, &c. Fulgentius, lib. 3. ad Transimundū Regem cap. 34. Iesus deserved this bowing. The same say all the Fathers, which repeat the Apostles words, which is an evidence of our Sauiours merit: these authors are mentioned in the state of the question concerning the letter of the text. And now Iesus hath power, and authority ouerall creatures, and they are all subiect to him, but the only time is not the last day: outward bowing is not denied him by the Fathers, which teach his maiesty and command, due to him for his merits sake ouer all the World according to Philip. 2. viz. Athanasius loco 3. S. Hilary loco 2. & 3. Theophilus Antiochenus, S. Basill, Nazianz. orat. 36. quae est secunda de filio. Nyssen loco 1. S. Ambrose loco 4. S. Hierome loco 2. S. Bernard, Rhemigius, Haymo in Phil. 2. Theophilact in Rom. 14. Isidor. Hispalensis, Surius, Synod Francford sub Adrian: Epist. Papae Adriani, Alexand. Alensis loco 1. Gorran in Philip, Salmeron, Lyra, and the Ordinary Glosse, Iunius in his Paralells. Tuo iussu, & voluntate meipsum exinaniui, &c. Ferus in his Annotations on S. Iohn cap. 17. Iesus therefore prayed, to be glorified, because he did obey, &c. Praemium [Page 64] humiliationis, & obedientiae. Sarcerius in Epist: Dominica Palmarum. To bow is a reward of Iesus his humility. Then recollect the Premisses, and you cannot but affirme, that bowing at the name of Iesus is necessary ex parte causae, infer'd by the necessity of its causes. A good obseruation to teach M, Prinne knowledge, that scire is Per causam scire: that bowing is certaine, perspicuous, very necessary, and truly honourable, ever proper to its subiect, the Church, being an externall worship, caused by so meritorious a cause, as the death of Iesus, and commanded by so iust, and so true a rewarding Iudge as God, who for his deaths sake did highly reward him, and gaue him a name aboue every name: that at the name of Iesus every knee shall bow.

4 After the essence, species, and causes of bowing at the name of Iesus according to M. Prinnes Authors, still according to practise and essence, behold a reall bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus, according to other of his quotations. Flexibile genu, quo prae caeteris Domini mitigatur offensa, ira mulcetur, gratia prouocatur, so S. Ambrose lib. 6. cap. 9. Hexameron. Bowing at the name of Iesus, God doth so well respect, that the bowers thereat are had in much favour with the Lord, &c. Hoc iurat Dominus, quod idolis derelictis omne genu ei flectatur, &c. Et moris est ecclesiastici Christo genu flectere, &c. S. Hierome on Isaiah 45. There the same Father quotes Phil. 2. 10: and saith that the Church shall not bow to Idols, but to Iesus Christ: and behold the obedience of the Church, tis customary with her so to bow. S. Augustine in his 123 Question on Genesis, teacheth that the Church must so bow to Iesus, as Iosephs Brethren did to him, &c. and venerable Bede hath the same words. Parere. so Sarcerius. This bowing is to obey the power of the Lord Iesus. Tis subiection, submission, and obedience of all creatures. B. Babington. A subiection, and obedience to the service of God: so the same author out of Origen. Wee dare not so much as speake of an earthly King vnreverently, what reverence then doe we owe vnto Christ the King of [Page 65] Heauen and earth? Thus M. Perkins on Philipp 2, in his exposition of the Creede. Pag. 309. And is not bowing then reall in the practise of the Church, and in the essence of Bowing.

5 Note that not one of M. Prinnes authors doth expound bowing, &c. only of subiection at the last day: and some doe not expound it at all, S. Ambrose in his last place saith neither that bowing is due at the last day, nor expoundeth it of subiection: but that Iesus is the glory of his Father, and that there is but one glory of the Father, and the sonne, per communem substantiam, & virtutem in substance and power, and that the humanity is equall: so hee proueth the sonne to be higher then the Angells in glory. S. Chrysost. on Phil. 2. speaketh nothing of subiection, at the last day. Nor S. Hierome at his excellent full place in Eph. 3. nor at Esay 45. S. Aug. lib. 1. cap. 13. de Trinitate saith, that the name aboue every name is giuen Christ according to his humanity: and so on 109 Psalme: and in his 2 booke cap. 2: contra Maximinium: Christo homini mortuo, Christo per carnem resurgenti, ascendenti donauit nomen. To Christ, dead, risen, and ascended, God gaue the name. S. Cyrill of Alexandria lib. 5. in Hesaiam cap. 55. pag. 362. saith to the humanity which was in esteeme ignoble, the name aboue every name was giuen: and in his first place quoted he expounds not Philip. 2. Theophilact speaketh not of subiection at the last day, on Phil. 2. Pope Caius teacheth to which nature of Christ the name aboue every name was giuen. Cyrill Athanat. 6. Theodoret and Theophilact say that all must bow, but not only at the last. Paulus Orotius saith that all shall bow at the last day: but not only at the last day. S. Damascen saith, that there was bowing at hearing the Preaching of Iesus, and at his descent into hell. Beza speaketh not of subiection. Gualter on Philip. 2. noteth only our Sauiours humility, and saith seeing that hee in whom was all good was humble, therefore wee in whom there is no good must be rather humble. Olevan speaketh of the [Page 66] multiplicity of the glory of Iesus: and to bow the knee is one glory giuen to the Lord. Konigstein in festo ascensionis, saith Iesus is exalted aboue all creatures. D. Airay saith, that now all creatures are subiect to him in 31 lector on Philip. pag. 357. True it is, that Bowing with the knee at the name of Iesus is a custome, which hath beene much vsed, and may without offence be retained, when the mind is free from superstition. He speakes against bowing at the bare sound, and saith to bow, and know not what the name meaneth, is superstition. So then they that know, that Iesus at Phil: 2. signifies the Lord Iesus, may and ought now to bow: so the same Doctor in the words following. Hyperius writeth thus: Genu flectere significat sese submittere, superiorem agnoscere, deni (que) & adorare. To bow the knee, signifies a submission too, and acknowledging of Iesus to bee aboue vs, and adoring of his Maiesty, power, and glory. Hunnius de persona Christi p. 145. saith that Philip. 2. proueth Iesus to be God, & in his tract de indulgentiis, p. 1552, that Iesus is exalted; Bruno on Phil. saith, that all shall bow at the last day; but only then he saith not. M. Cartwright against the Rhemists saith, tis false, that we will haue no reverence giuen to the name of Iesus: and afterwards he quarrells as much as any Puritan against Iesus, except the vaine Catalogue▪ Quoter. D. Fulke speakes thus. It may be vsed well, when the mind is free from superstition in signe of reverence to his Maiesty, and as in a matter, wherein Christian liberty ought to haue place, so that Doctor And the seruice of Iesus is perfect freedome, and shall we then not bow? Flectitur, &c. Peter Lombard in Phil. Every knee doth now bow.

6 The name at Phil. 2. must be bowed to. For by essence 'tis God. God is the name, so Tertullian. Nazianz. 2. orat. de filio, S. Ambrose loco vltimo, Oecumenius. This name is the sonne of God. Sedulius, Oecumenius, Peter Lombard, Bonaventure, &c. This name is Maiesty and Power, so Hyperius. Honorificentia so Bruno. Honour, or worship. Tis power, Glory, Honour, and Authority aboue all powers, &c. [Page 67] so B. Babington in his exposition on the Creede pag. 245. Tis fama so Sarcerius. The fame, credit, or worthinesse of Iesus, The only begotten sonne, so Konigstein. Tis Iesus so Haymo on Phil. 2. Chrysol. ser. 145. Alexander Alensis. Only Iesus is the deseruing name. If the Arians, and Nestorians, who questioned our Sauiours deity, must be answered: then God is his name. If Christians must be taught, what is his name aboue every name, then the answere with reference to his merit must be, that only Iesus is his meritorious, and his exalted name. This answere let M. Prinne obserue in his reply, if he be able and ought, to write againe, against the truth, 1. so essentially, 2. so specifically, 3. so demonstratiuely, 4. so practiquely, 5. so testimonially, 6. so really, and nominally made more then customarily knowne by his owne quoted authors.

7 Besides falsifying of the of Authorities, by exclusiue sense, M ^r Prinne hath his simple false Quotations in his 80 times long Catalogue. 1. Hezaem for Hexamer [...]n. in Saint Ambros. 2. Theophylact Alexandrinus is no Author but Theophylus Alexandrinus 3. Saint Cyrill in his 5. lib. in Hesaim. cap. 55. pag. 362. is non ens, so is his cited place on S ^t Iohn. lib. 17. cap. 17. 20. 22. for he hath writ but 12. books on Saint Iohn: and lib: 13. Thesauri is a false quotation: 4. Primasius sayth nothing on Rom: 14. 5 ^ly Pope Gaia there is non, but Gaius or Caius there is, 6 ^ly Leo his 14 ^th 81, & 95. Decretal Epistles are false Quotations. So is Aelredus in ser. 1. in Isai. 13: and Tyndall; for he hath only a Prologue to the Philip: and mentions not bowing. Neither Luther nor Feras, hath a Postill on palme Sunday. Pet. Matthaeus writes the summe of the Pops constitutions: and Phil. Matthaeus writes ciuill law: Chrytaeus hath no postill on Palme Sunday. Komingstein is no uuthor, but Koneigstein is, Cutbert Tonstall, a Bishop, and Master Charke a Kentish Paritan do not say, that the Church must bow at the name of Iesus only at the last day. 'Tis strang, that M. Prinne doth quote D. Boyes, and Zanchius for Avouchers of his opinion. Is he so forgetfull [Page 68] of his diuision, to proue bowing &c. to be nothing, where he saith that Zanchius, and Doctor Boyes hold that bowing at Philip: 2. is a ceremony &c. but not an Indifferent ceremony, as Master Prinne reports. By this time you see how truely Master Prinne hath confirmed this denying of bowing at the name name of Iesus in the time of Grace, by good Authors. Only at the last day his Tenet hee will proue, and if he be so tedious, he should not haue dared to write till then: so he might haue saued his Credit, which now is lost in so many falsifications. How many? 80. or there abouts? There are 15. Scripture-chapters: but there are particular quoted texts of chap: 36. There are 80. Interpreters, or very nigh so many, but their particular cited places are 120. at least. For ought any solide scholer can read, and obserue out of these scriptures, and Interpreters, Master Prinne might haue quoted Saint Whetston, if there be any such aliue, or intombed, as well for his purpose, as these. If he would make this evasion, that he saith not, that bowing shall be only at the last, but only principally at the last day; he hath shewed himselfe to be a fighter with the aier, and his disputations to bee vaine, and Idle, for that is not the thing in Question, but whether bowing be a duty according to the meaning of the text, whether now in the time of Grace we must bow at the name of Iesus.

These are his Propositions comparing bowing of Grace with the bowing of Glory.

1 THat bowing of the Church is an actuall Corporall bowing peculiar to men, who haue knees to bow. But this bowing in the text is metaphoricall, which Angels, Spirits, and men yeeld to Christ.

Reply.

Doe Angells bow metaphorically? Surely they bow and shall bow actually. For they bow spiritually, really: they doe in deede exercise potentiam obedientialem their obedientiall [Page 69] Bowing Power in a super-morall perfection. And if actuall Corporall bowing be peculiar vnto men: why then shall not they bow their corporall, organicall knees. God commands every creature to bow those knees, which he hath: Shall man make answeare: the Angells haue noe corporall knees, and therefore men will not bow their knees? Is this a good answeare, doe you thinke? It can neuer please God. For God requiring according to that, which a man hath, will not be mocked.

1 That Bowing of the Church is adoration. This in the text is Subiection.

Reply.

Adoration in the state of grace is a subiection: or els to to adore were not a bowing: and so Christians should be noe worshippers of God. And who are they, but knee-bound Hypocrites? None els are so vnreverent.

3 That bowing of the Church is only a bowing of liuing men. This of Angells, Deuils, and foules departed. That only of Christians in the Church. This both of Christians in, and of Infidels, Iewes, Pagans, out of the Church. That only of some few Christians, and they for [...]e most part Papists &c. This of all.

Reply.

The time of Grace is not to be compar'd with the time of Glory comparatione aequiparentiae at the last day. The number of them, which shall then bow, is greater by many thousands. But doth this inferre, that there shalbe no bowing at the name of Iesus, but only then? Shall Grace be vnreuerent, and not bow? Credat Iudaeus Apella. Who but an Infidel, will belieue that false supposition? Master Prinne saith that bowing at the name of Iesus, is the practise of Papists, ignorant, superstitious Persans, that 'tis a new coyned duty. But our Church doth bow at the name of Iesus, to testify, that Iesus Christ is the Lord, the glory of God the Father: and let this direct the ignorant, and reforme the Papist, and Puritan, Is this new-coynd seruice? 'Tis so ancient, [Page 70] as Saint Paules Epistle to the Philippians: For that is the ground precept of Bowing:

4 That bowing of the Church is only at the name. This is to the Person.

Reply.

This is so true, as if Iesus were not the name of Iesus, or not vnderstood, and acknowledged to be the name of that King of Kings.

5 That bowing of the Church is not ioyned with this confession: Iesus is the Lord. This bowing is ioyned.

Reply.

The bowing at the name of Iesus is an implicit Confession, that Iesus is the Lord, so B. Andrewes. And I aduise all well beloueing Christians, to belieue the 18 Canon of our Church rather then all Prinnes, then all the Non-conformists, at what place soever. For the Canon teacheth, that bowing at the name of Iesus is a testifying, or confessing that Iesus is the Lord. Me thinkes that the regenerate (if learned) doe know, that holy worship hath so necessary dependence on Grace, that the contrariety, and contradiction of mans will must not make a professed change of, and a diverting from pious worship, and religious perseuerance. Iesus hath and doth alway performe his part of covenant: He is alwaies mercifull. And the regenerate must performe his part of Gods couenant. He must depend on the cause, on the author of habituall, and actuall grace, in applying, & imploying himselfe in all religious obedience too, and for the Lord Iesus. For quifecit te sine te, non vult servare te sine te: he that made thee without thee, will not saue thee, if thou be disobedient. Iesus is thy head, and shall thy peeuish will separate thee from Iesus. His Church then must excommunicate thee: and extra eccle siam non est salus, out of the Church there is no saluation: and which is that Church, Read learned B. Mortons booke entituled The Grand Imposture of the Church of Rome: a booke which no Iesuite nor Iesuiticall Colledge can confute.

[Page 71]

Whether bowing at the name of Iesus be an indifferent harmelesse, and decent ceremony.

CEremonies of State, I commend to Heralds at Armes, and their adherents. Morall ceremonies, an vncouered head, a curteous speech, a bended body, and knee, let the Moralist take, to signify his curteous heart, wishing all happinesse to the person saluted, &c. Nor may I here speake of every outward signe: for the signes, which did signify Christ to come, were the Iewes Typicall ceremonies, and they are abolished. And the signes, which doe signify Iesus dead for sinnes, are the two Sacraments: nor are these signes of Christs death, within the letters of this question. The Ceremony here to be discussed, is the Ecclesiasticall ceremony; which I define thus. An ecclesiasticall ceremony is a decent, and orderly signe of the Regenerats or Churches signified duty.

Every Church-ceremony is a signe. For compare a morall ceremony with a morall substantiall duty, and then tis but a resemblance. Compare a morall ceremony with a Christian internall morall duty signified, and 'tis but a [...]gne, which must be decent. Thus: morally signifying a comely correspondence to the duty signifyed. And this signe must be orderly, an orderly signe according to rule, and methode. The rule must be the scripture, or some rational rule, not contrary to scripture. The methode must be perfect, the reason of the Author without exception. There must be no confusion, but a certaine, and perspicuous signification. There must not be ouer-many, nor to few ceremonies, but a conuenient number: their signification must be apposite, to the purpose, which is religion.

Some decent, orderly fignes are vniuersall ordain'd for the whole Church: These are, either expresse scripture, as imposition of hands Heb: 6, 2, Acts: 8, 17, The 2, Is a man vncovered in the Church at praier and Sermon 1. of Cor. 11. 4. 7. [Page 72] the third is loud musicall instruments Psal. hence Organes and Bells are vsed in the Church. 4. Bowing at the name of Iesus. Phil. 2. 10. and many such like. These are necessary ceremonies, because they signify the substantiall internall duty of the Catholique Church.

Other ceremonies are necessarily deducted from Scripture. The first, the ring in marriage is deduced from Mat. 19. ver. 4. 5. 6. from this principle: Man and wife are no more twaine but one flesh: therefore the ring in Marriage is giuen for a signe of that perpetuall vnity. The signe of the crosse is deduced from Mat. 16. 24. from this duty: He that will be the disciple of Iesus, must take vp his crosse and follow him, therefore the crosse after Baptisme, is giuen for a signe to signify a professed willingnesse, to endure any affliction for Iesus his sake. The third, to kneele at receauing the Lords supper, is deducted from our kneeling at prayer, Psal. 95. 6. Therefore because wee must say Amen to this prayer, in most humble manner: viz. The body of our Lord Iesus Christ, preserue both body and soule to Everlasting life: Therefore kneeling is the appointed ceremony, of our humble, reverent, and faithfull receauing. The fourth is Procession, whi [...] is deduced from Mat. 28. 19. from this duty: Goe, and teach all Nations. Therefore Procession is given for a signe of obedience to this precept: that, we goe to our vtmost appointed parish bounds, and read the Gospell. The 5. the surplesse is deducted from Revel. 19. 8. from the analogy of the righteousnes of faith, with the righteousnesse of the Saints in Heaven: therefore the white surplesse is giuen for a ceremony. The sixt, is standing at the Creede, deducted from Ephes. 6. 14. being a signe of standing there to our faith. The seauenth is the 4 cornered cap deduced from vnmoueablenesse in the faith, at Eph. 4. ver. 11, 12, 13, 14. Quadrangulare difficulter mobile: A fower cornered body is hard to be moued: the 4 cornered cap signifies vnmoueablenesse & so 'tis a signe. The seauenth is the penitenti [...]ll sheete deducted from Mat. 11. 21. from the analogy of repentance in [Page 72] sackcloath and ashes. Therefore the white sheete is appointed for a signe of the like repentance. These signes which are expresse Scripture, are vniversall, and so necessary ceremonies of the Catholique Church, as the first foure, and so are all ceremonies, which are pregnantly deduceable out of holy Writ. Tis more then probable that the Church, being rationall, able to giue a reason of her morall significant ceremonies, tooke these Scriptures, &c. to bee the rule and ground of her ceremonies.

Besides the vniversall, there are particular, decent, orderly ceremonies, which are not one and the same in all countries: so our 34 Article. Neither their matter, nor forme is commanded in the text. Against the text they must not be: & they must be convenient, decent, and orderly for the countries and times, and mens manners, where they are established: thus they are harmelesse ceremonies. These particular ceremonies are no duties of the text: but S ^t Paul requires that they be decent and orderly. These are the indifferent ceremonies, indifferent for matter, as an hairecloath or sackcloath, or some other vile cloath might be the ceremony of penance, as well as the white sheete. Indifferent for colour, for as white analogically signifies purenesse of faith so suppositiuely gray signifies seniority, blacke, mortification: Scarlet, the vndauntednesse of mind, &c. Here then is variety: and every country may choose his colour. But I call no particular ceremonies so indifferent, as that a man may or may not vse them pro suo Arbitrio, as he will himselfe. Hee must vse them being therevnto commanded. Every soule must be subiect to the Higher Powers in these things, which are not contrary, nor in part contradictory to Gods word; be they ceremonies, be they what they are: they must be observed for conscience sake, Rom. 13. 5. And although some ceremonies are indifferent, in respect of coveniency or aptnesse of signification: yet you must vnderstand, that they are necessary when they are commanded: and punishment must make them necessary againe, which indulgence [Page 74] makes to be but indifferent, or rather presumption grounded on indulgence. The summe of all is this. The essence of Church ceremony in genere in kind, is a morall signe; in correlation tis a morall Christian duty signified: the formality is decency, and order: the Author of ceremonies expressed in the new Testament is the Holy Ghost: the author of ceremonies deducted from Scripture by pregnant consequence is the Church, and these are, or ought to be the Ceremonies of the Church vniversall.

Ceremonies deducted from analogy of Scripture for the conveniency of Countries, times, and mens manners, are particular ceremonies. The vse of all ceremonies according to their nature, author, and end is harmelesse: for tis a good, morall, decent, and orderly expression, of a signified duty, by a morall, decent, and orderly signe. The property of no ceremony commanded is indifferency: for command, and indifferency cannot, nor may they dwell together. Must I repeat vnto you in this place how bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty of the text, and how tis a ceremony: Thus then: as tis an humble obedience to this commanding Scripture, Phil. 2. 10. so tis a duty of the text. As tis a morall decent and orderly signe of bowing of the heart at the name of Iesus, manifested by the knee: tis a ceremony, a necessary ceremony, it should neuer cease to be in any Church; 'tis an vniuersall ceremony: for God requires it in all Churches: not only for a day or a yeare, but for ever: so perpetuall are Gods morall commands. They that doe not practise this bowing doe diminish somewhat from the scripture: and if they will not amend, let them expect a iudgement: The Scripture doth direct them, where they may behold their condemnation. These arguments following haue no helpe in them, to deliuer a man from danger, which the disobedient may incurre.

[Page 75]

1 Bowing at the name of IESVS is no Ceremony.

Objection. 1.

EVery Ceremony is an Adiunct, or an Appendix to a forme, or Circumstance of any religious duty whatsoeuer. But bowing at the name of Iesus is no Adiunct &c.

Solution.

Master Prinnes marginall note is that the Iewes Ceremonies were types, or shadowes of Iesus Christ. Coloss: 2: 16, 17. Heb: 10, 1. but our ceremonies are things appendant to religious duties &c. Where is Master Prinnes profe, that bowing at the name of Iesus is not an appendent signe, or rather a dependant signe on, and of a religious duty. Euery Ceremony is a signe of a religious duty. This is true. But the contrary is not true. For bowing at the name of Iesus is the Christian morall signe of the Hearts worshipping of Iesus, exalted King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. The knee is a materiall signe, the manner of bowing the knee in honour of Iesus, is decency, and order, because 'tis an externall humble reuerence. This argument hath proued nothing, but 'tis a bare suppose.

Obiection. 2.

Euery ceremony hath relation to some sacred Ordinance, or Religious duty, to which it is appendant. As kneeling to praier, Standing to the Creed. But bowing at the name of Iesus hath relation, neither to any sacred Ordinance, nor to any Religious duty. Because it hath immediate reference, to the very person of Christ himselfe, not to the sound, or syllables of his name.

Solution.

This Argument is M ^r Prinnes 2 Argument at the first Question, and the 4 in the last Question. And let M ^r Prinne learne, that bowing at the name of Iesus hath relation to a sacred Ordinance, and this is diuine seruice, then only we [Page 75] bow: and relation to a religious duty, which is the Hearts worshipping of Iesus, the inward bowing; and relation immediately to the Person of Iesus, for he is the Immediate finis cui, the exalted Lord, for whose Honours sake we bow. Independent relation, what learned word is that Independent? Master Prinne saith, that bowing at the name of Iesus hath immediate Independent relation to the very person of Christ. Relation is a mutuall dependence, if it be essentiall; and bowing at the name of Iesus is dependent on the very Person of Iesus, there it rests, as in its Center: or Personal End.

2 Assertion

The arguments which are produced, to proue it to be a necessary, or laudable ceremonie, doe directly proue it, to be no ceremonie, but a divine worship, or Adoration peculiar vnto Christ as God.

Objection, 1.

Bishop Andrewes, Doctor Boyes, Master Adams, and Master Widdowes &c. haue disputed the very letters, and syllables of Philip. 2. 10: to proue bowing at the name of Iesus to be a necessary or laudable ceremony, but this argument proues it to be a duty incident to the very name, and Person of Iesus: therefore 'tis no naked, arbitrary Ceremony.

Solution.

Here obserue that Master Prinne hath contradicted the diuision of his first argument, at the first Question. For there Bishop Andrewes, and Master Adams are the Teachers, as he saith that bowing at the name of Iesus is a duty of the text: and here againe He sayth, that Doctor Boyes, and Master Widdowes doe teach that bowing at the name of Iesus is an indifferent, harmelesse Ceremony.

Quo teneam vultum mutantem Protea Nodo?

In my first answeare there is Bishop Andrewes M. Adams &c. Tenet: which Master Prinne did falsify: And there is D ^r Boyes and Giles Widdowes &c. assertion: all opposite to the intruding Diuine. But see a contradiction in this argument. D. ^r [Page] Boyes &c. proue bowing at the name of Iesus to be a necessary, or laudable ceremony, so Master Prinne: but they hold that 'tis a naked arbitrary ceremony, so Master Prinne, As if necessary were not opposite to indifferent: and laudable were not more excellent than a bare Arbitrary ceremony.

Obiection. 2

This bowing at the name of Iesus is to the person of Christ: therefore tis not idolatry to bow at the name of Iesus. From this argument M ^r Prinne concluds, that the bowing at the name of Iesus, is no bare arbitrary ceremony because tis done to the person of Christ.

Solution.

And I say that 'tis no arbitrary ceremony: because 'tis expresse Scripture: so say all Orthodoxe divines: B. Andrewes, D ^r Boyes, M ^r Adams: Zanchius, &c. And therefore tis a necessary ceremony; commanded by God himselfe▪ and for Puritanicall contempt, which now despiseth this ceremony, our Church hath ordained the 18 ^th Canon, to reforme the wilfull and ignorant.

Obiection 3.

This is a forg'd reason, why Christians bow at the name of Iesus: This: To iustify, testify, and proclaime the deity of Christ, against Arians, Iewes, and Infidells, that deny it. No ancient Father euer said that this is true, nor Councell, &c.

Solution.

Here M ^r Prinne doth accuse Zanchius, M ^r Hooker, and Dr Boyes, of forgery. But hee is very grossely mistaken: though he hath disputed this argument before, at the first question, and first argument. For Athanasius contra Arianos orat. 2. and in his Epistle to his brother Adelphius, doth teach that wee must bow to testify that Iesus is God. The councell of Ephesus consisting of 200 Fathers saith the same against Nestorius. Athanasius answereth the Arians that disputed, that Iesus is not God, because he died the death of the crosse. Phil. 2. 8. Thus: That Iesus was put to [Page 78] death in the flesh, and the humanity exalted, now he must be honoured with this honour: At the name of Iesus every knee shall bow: Nunc, & in posteris; for euer. The Fathers before quoted say the same. Againe, there is not the same reason, why wee should bow at the name of the Holy Ghost, though Heretiques haue denied, that he is God, as there is, why we should bow at the name of Iesus: for the text saith, because Iesus died the death of the Crosse, therefore every knee shall bow: so Iesus was really, more really despised then the Holy Ghost, and a long time before Macedonius was an Heretique. And why we bow at the name Iesus, rather then at any other of his names: Tis answered at the 3 argument of the 2 question.

Objection. 4.

This reason of justifying, testifying, and proclaiming the deity of Iesus against the Arians. &c. ceaseth to be a reason, because none doe openly deny the deity of Iesus, as these Arians.

Solution

The Turkes deny Iesus to be God, so doe the Iewes, who are not converted, and other infidells, divillish Apostats. And the Puritans are no friends to Iesus, & differ not much from Arians and Nestorians, in expounding of this text. His name Iesus was not aboue every name with these, neither is it the highest name with them. Iesus was most disgraced in this name Iesus: but what is that to Puritans, they will worship him nothing the more for that? So then there is cause, and shall be cause, why we must maintaine bowing to the Worlds end. When Iesus shall come to iudgement, shall he find all faithfull that are then aliue?

Obiection 5.

If this bowing be so great, as that every knee must bow: then this bowing is the greatest of bowings: then 'tis a divine worship proper to Christ, then 'tis no humane Constitution, which man can prescribe, then 'tis no arbitrary ceremony.

[Page 79]

Solution.

This bowing is so great, as the Text saith, all knees shall bow at the name of Iesus. And in a divine manner with reference to Iesus both God and man, all knees at divine service doe bow. The bowers at Iesus his name, doe loue him aboue all things, & accordingly they doe bow at his name. Thus this bowing is aboue all other bowings. This is a bowing proper to God in mans nature, first vilified, now exalted, and tis only due to Iesus, as hee is exalted King of Kings, and Lord of Lords. It is beyond the spheare of man, to be the author of this adoration: but the Church hath power to reforme the neglect of this bowing at the name of Iesus: Hence the Church hath instituted the 18 Canon to that purpose.

Obiection 6.

This bowing at the name of Iesus is not arbitrary: for many are vrged to vse it, others are questioned for oppugning, and censur'd. But M ^r Hooker, D ^r Fulke, and M ^r Willet say that this Ceremony is arbitrary.

Solution.

Master Hooker sayth that bowing at the name of Iesus is harmlesse. He vseth not the words arbitrary ceremony. D. Fulke doth commend it, and misliketh the superstition at the name Iesus. Yet neither he, not Doctor Willet speake so fully to this bowing as they might haue done. But I tell you, and not I but Orthodoxe Bishop Andrewes that bowing at the name of Iesus is a necessary ceremony. They that say, that this bowing is arbitrary in actu elicito as a thing to be thought by any man for indifferent, are to be Questioned, and Censur'd for Church Rebelles. But questionles 'tis arbitrary actu imperato. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to the Church, to will and command, this bowing at the name of Iesus

[Page 79]

3 Assertion. Bowing at the name of Iesus is not an harmelesse ceremony.

Obiection 1.

TIs no harmelesse ceremony. For it occasions much Idolatry in Papists, and ignorant Protestants. The Papists doe adore this name Iesus, as they doe their Images, Altars, Hoasts, Crosses, and Crucifixes. Ignorant Protestants doe worship the very naked name Iesus, or else Ioshua, Iustus, or the sonne of Sirach: and the Identity of the word Iesus deceaues the ignorant Protestant.

Solution.

Gods blessings doe occasion some men to bee couetous. And therefore king David Prayed to the Lord: thus: Incline not my heart to couetousnesse. Psal. 119. Ioseph the Lords chosen servant, occasioned his Brethren to sell him to the Ishmaelites, Gen. 28. What then? Should neither Gods blessing, nor Ioseph be; because evill men did abuse them? This is strange doctrine. Iesus his name occasions idolatry: (that is your Scandalum acceptum your peevish conceipt:) Must Iesus his name then bee had in no honour? Must not the knee bow? I deny that Prohibition. Doe ignorant Protestants bow at the bare name Iesus? Then they must be thus instructed: that they bow ever hereafter in token that Iesus being despised by Iew and Gentile, is Iesus exalted, and acknowledged by our Church to be the King of Heauen and Earth. Doe ignorant Protestants bow at the name of Iesus who is either Ioshua, or Iustus, or Iesus, the sonne of Sirach, I thinke in charity that no Protestant is so ignorant as to bow at the name of Iesus the sonne of Sirach. For he is in the Apocrypha: But who ever did heare of any man, that bowed at the name of Iesus in the old Testament or Apochrypha? And did any man bow at the name of Iesus, who is Ioshuah, at reading the new Testament? or at the name of [Page 80] Iesus who is called Iustus. Then let him learne these notes. Iesus who is Ioshua is only at Act: 7. 45. and at Heb: 4. 8. And Iesus which is Iustus is read only at Coloss: 4. 11. The 2 former scriptures are not so plaine, as the last, to know the Iesus there signified. But remember, that I haue put you, and your Brethren in minde, where you must forbeare to bow at the name of Iesus. Doe Papists committ Idolatry with their Images, Altars, Crosses, and Crucifixes? This is Indirect Idolatry: so much I haue obseru'd out of Bellarmines indirect worship of Images. Direct Idolatry is a sinne against this law: Thou shalt haue none other Gods but me. To bow downe before Images, Crucifixes, &c: is a sinne against the second commandement. For therein God hath forbidden such worship. God wilbe worshipped according to his owne methode, and rule, in spirit, and truth Ioh: 4. thus, according to his owne Methode, which is the methode of Grace, and no otherwise he wilbe worshipped: therefore mans presuming worship must not be practised. But the adoration of the Hoast is Idolatry: 'tis a giuing of the honour of the Creator vnto the Creature. And Transubstantiation is a grosse sinne. By a Popish conceipt, it is a Confusion of Iesus his glory, more Tyrannicall, than the pulling of Iesus his skinne, ouer his eares. For Transubstantiation in termiuo a Quo, is a seperation of Iesus his All-glorious Essence from his most glorious Inseperable Accidents: And in termino ad quem 'tis a confining Iesus vnder the superficies of an inches length, and bredth: or thereabouts in their sacrament, with more than a 1000 parricular contradictions. This is much like Master Prinns separating the name Iesus from the signified Iesus: as if the name Iesus had no signification, no sense, because a Perverse Humorist thinks so ignorantly of vnlearned Protestants, as if they did bow to the fiue letters.

Obiection. 2.

Tis no harmlesse ceremony: For it occasioneth much palpable superstition, by bowing at the name of Iesus only, and [Page 81] not at the name of God the Father, God the Holy Ghost, God, Emmanuel, Lord, Iehouah, Sauiour, Sonne of God, Lamb of God, Christ, Mediator, &c. All being Glorious, Reuerend, Holy, Great &c. Names, deseruing as much Bowing, as the name Iesus doth.

Solution.

This superstitious Argument is disputed in many arguments before, at handling the scope of the text, and there tis answeared, that Iesus is in Essence, and Power, all these. But here is so much repeating of the same thing, as if Master Prinne were in loue with superstitious Tautology. If that first Moue able be in his mouth, his tongue can neuer stand still. And why then is Iesus so much magnified? Because Iesus exinanivit se, did put of himselfe, &c. and God the Father is so well pleased herein, that he hath made this bowing, and this confession to be his Glory, and Greatest delight.

Obiection. 3.

Tis no harmlesse ceremony: for it makes a disparity in the sacred Persons, who are coeternall, and coequall. For the Sonne is aduanced aboue them; Because his name Iesus is more honoured than theirs.

Solution.

This Argument is disputed before: & Master Prinne is a fraide of the text. But was either the Father, or the Holy Ghost so basely vsed as he. Will He euer be talking and yet neuer speake to the Purpose? Tell me, what is the reason, why Iesus is exalted, and so much exalted, that at the name of Iesus euery knee shall bow? If He will be tongue tied now, I will tell him the reason, and I would to God, that hee would vnderstand the text; which sayth. Because Iesus was so humble as that he died the death of the Crosse, that cursed death. Yet He will not Bow. Why? Truely then he should dishonour the Father, & the Holy Ghost: yet the Father and the Holy Ghost are so willing, that Iesus should be honoured with hat, knee, and heart, that they teach, and command, [Page 82] that as Iesus was vilified with the knee: for the Iewes bowed the knee, and mocked him. Matth. 27. 29. so the Church therefore must honour him with the knee, and bow to their Almighty King Iesus. Our Sauiour saith that He is in the Father, and that the Father is in him: and and therefore he tould Philip Ioh: 14. 9, 10. That He, that had seene him, had seene the Father also. The three Persons are but one God in substance: thus there is no disparity, no superaduancing: For the same Substance is Father, Sonne, and Holy Ghost, who is thus reuerenced, worshipped, honoured. S ^t Aug: in his 14. lib. de Trinitate, as I remember calls the three Persons, Relatiuam naturam, Gods relatiue nature. S ^t Hierome in his exposition of the Creede, calls the three Persons, tres proprietates, three relatiue properties of God. And tis graunted by Protestant, Papist, and Puritan that the three persons are not three substances, but three Relatiue Modalities of one, and the same Infinite, and most Mercifull God. And because in the Relation of a sonne he did humble himselfe to performe all, and the extremest obedience for vs: what shall hinder him to require our thankefull, and most humble heart, and knee-obedience, cheifely to magnify his deity, and humanity in the name of Iesus God made this Person lower then the Angells to Crowne him with glory, and worship, so the Psalmist.

Obiection 4.

'Tis no harmelesse ceremony, for this preferrs one name of Christs before another.

Solution.

'Tis true: and yet this is not an vnlawfull disparity, as 'tis disputed in the 3 argument. For Iesus is the name aboue every name. The 3. Argument of the 2 Question doth not proue the contrary, nor the Argument of Souereignty repeated 6 times in the 3. Question. This reason of S. Paule must still be true: because Iesus was so humble, as that hee died the death of the Crosse: therefore Iesus is thus exalted: that at the name of Iesus &c.

[Page 83]

Obiection. 5.

'Tis no harmeles Ceremony. For this attributes more honour, and dignitie to the Naked name, than to the Person of Iesus.

Solution.

This argument is part of the first in this Assertion: 'tis the 2. of the 2. Assertion: tis a fourth at the Metaphoricall sence: 'tis a part of the 2. argument of the 1 Question in Master Prinnes Appendix: 'tis at the 6 argument of the 3 Question, and now 'tis fiftly. And tis not true that our Church doth Bow at the name Iesus, and not to his person, as it is answered already.

Obiection. 6.

'Tis no harmlesse Ceremony. For to bow at the name of Iesus is to take Gods name in vaine. For many doe ignorantly, carelesly, customarily, and superficially for the most part cap, and Bow without reverence &c. of Iesus his person.

Solution.

Some then sinne against Iesus Ignorantly: they doe worship only the fiue letters. Therefore Master Prinne will not Bow the knee. He will oppose his Mother the Church, and his nourse the Vniversitie, and which is worst of all, the holy Ghost, the teacher of all truth. Here is a case worse, then the worst case in Law: and it must not goe on his side. For the Evidence is plaine, that our Church doth not take Gods name in vaine, by bowing at the name of Iesus. The Ascension-day is the appoynted time, when our Church doth solemnely celebrate this part of the Apostles Creede: Iesus ascended into Heauen. Then publiquely, and religiously, wee teach with bended knees that Iesus is the Lord. And is this to take Gods name in vaine? 8 ^th Psalm ver. 1. our Church affirmeth, that Iesus is our Lord, and Gouernour. At the 2. ver. that He is omnipotent in ordaining strength out of the mouth of Babes, and sucklings for to still the Enemy, and the Avenger. In the 3 that He is our Creator. I will consider the Heauens, the workes of thy fingers &c. At the 4 vers. That He is the [Page 84] most mercifull God, mindfull of vs, in that he came to visit vs by Incarnation. At 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. verses there is the exaltation, the Crowning of him with glory, and great worship: The acknowledging, that Iesus hath the Dominion of the workes of Gods hands. That all things are put in subiection vnder his feete. At the 15. Psalm: we read in the Audience of all the Congregation: that only he is the Deseruing Person, to dwell in Heauen. At Psal: 21. That Iesus is our King, our sauing King, our Crowned King, our Immortall King, Invincible, Victorious King. At the 24. Psal: That Iesus is our Triumphant King, the King of Glory, the Lord strong and mighty in Battell: The Lord of Hosts, the King of Glory At Psal: 48, & 108. there our Church doth aboundantly reioyce in him, our Powerfull, and mercifull God. The Chapters, the Epistle, and Gospell, and the Collect for the Ascension-day, are infallible rules, that our Church doth not take the name of God in vaine, but hath appoynted the services, in and to the honour of our God, and Saviour Iesus.

4. Assertion. Bowing at the name of Iesus is no orderly, and Decent Ceremony.

Obiection. 1.

Tis noe orderly, and decent Ceremony: For it confounds one duty with an other: viz praying with Bowing: Reading, and bowing: hearing, and Bowing. For many duties cannot be done togeather without Confusion.

Solution.

To rise vp from praying on the knee to Bow, is a needles suppose: for that Bowing at prayer is the greater Bowing at the name of Iesus: for that doth invoke the Lord Iesus, & this doth but testifie that Iesus is the Lord. But to read, and bow, these are coordinate duties, and so are to heare, and bow: one doth not confound the other: for they are yoake-fellowes, fellow-labowrers: they doe enioy one the other in an vnanimous Concurrence. A man doth heare, and goe at the same time: so he doth see, and goe: speake and goe, read, and [Page 86] goe: A man doth heare, and stand, and then why not heare, and bow? Coordinate duties, although they be many, are all done togeather without confusion. At the same time a man doth see with the eie, heare with the eare, tast, smel, handle without confusion, every Coordinate Organ is able to exercise its office: At the same time many subordinate duties may be done. The first moueable doth moue all other spheares, and they all doe moue from East to West in 24. howres. So the heart serving God doth incline, and agitate all inferiour parts to praise the Lord, so that the knee doth bow, and the tongue doth confesse, that Iesus is the Lord; both, serue the Lord thus togeather.

Obiection. 2.

Tis no orderly, and decent Ceremony. For this disturbs men in their devotion. For devotion, and bowing are severall, & distinct actions: and they both require the whole Inward, and outward man at once. Therefore to bow, and to be devout togeather destroy the Hoc agere, the seriousnes, which ought to be severall in devotion, and Bowing: because no man can serue two masters.

Solution.

The Inward man is the guide, and Gouernour of the outward man in the state, and in the able parctise of Grace. He then is no regenerate man, in whom there is so much contrariety, as that his soule, and his body agree not to worship the Lord Iesus. If Puritans consist of such sullen oppositions, their waies are confusion: and their Hoc agere is nihil agere. If their hearts, and eares, and knees be such great strangers, as that when to pray fervently, to heare attentiuely, be at Church, then to bow reverently is separated from hearing, and praying, and left at home, the outward man is not subordinate to the inward, & the soule, and bodie are contraries. Are bowing, and devotion distinct actions? cannot they agree togeather? This bowing is externall adoratiō, and so it depends on, and necessarily is subordinate to vnto inward devotion. They cannot be separated distinctly: [Page 87] for devotion is in bowing, and exercising, and bending the knee. What is that, which doth essentially, virtually, and effectually read, pray, and bow, but faith radically in the heart, and the same faith manifested in the tongue speaking, and in the knee Bowing? And then what great difference, what distinction haue the inward, and outward actions, but a Primarily for the inward action in the heart belieuing▪ and a Secondarily for the outward action in the tongues expression, and in the knees orderly, and decent signification, that Iesus is the Lord, at whose name every knee, &c. The members of mans body serue to helpe one another in their seuerall actions. The head cannot say to the feete, I haue no neede of you; nor can the feete say to the head, I haue no neede of thee, &c. 1. Cor. 12. In the hoc agere in the most serious worke they helpe one another. Therefore the heart in devotion, and the knee in subiection, must not be spared at bowing at the name of Iesus; a true and divine seruice. Here is no seruing of two Masters, but of one. For Iesus is the fame yeasterday, to day, and ever. Heb. 13. 8. But yet so ignorant M ^r Prinne is, that he knowes not the difference betweene subordination and contrary opposition.

Master Prinnes opinion is, that Bowing at the name of Iesus is a meere Popish Invention to Iustify the worshipping of Images, Crosses, Crucifixes, Hoasts, Reliques, and Idolized Altars. This he saith, is a practise much in vse of late among some Romanizing Protestants, yet he hopes, that shame may turne the hearts of the zealous Teachers of bowing at the name of Iesus, and Altar-Geniculations, that they will forbeare thus to bow, till they can produce better Authority, then yet they haue alleaged.

Reply.

And what better profe, then the Text, that wee must bow at the name of Iesus?

God commands this bowing. Thus.

1 All knees commanded to bow at the name of Iesus, must bow at the name of Iesus. The Churches knees are [Page 87] commanded to bow at the name of Iesus: Therefore the Churches knees must bow at the name of Iesus.

The maior is a divine axiome, so worthy for truth, that all Christians must belieue it. The minor is the Text. Thus: All knees are commanded to bow at the name of Iesus, and the Churches knees are included in all knees.

True saith M ^r Prinne, at the last day all knees shall bow: but our knees must not bow at time of Divine service, which I refell. Thus:

A time to bow is the time of Grace. Thus:

2 The time of Grace to confesse that Iesus is the Lord, is the Militant Churches time to Bow at the name of Iesus. The time of Divine service, is the time of grace to confesse that Iesus is the Lord. Therefore the time of Divine service, is the Militant Churches time to bow as the name of Iesus.

The Maior and Minor propositions, are diuine axiomes. And Master Prinne saith, that then is the time of bowing, when the tongue must confesse, that Iesus is the Lord.

3 Argument.

From the end of bowing.

To testify that Iesus is the Lord is lawfull and necessary at time of divine seruice.

To bow at the name of Iesus is to testify that Iesus is the Lord, so the 18 ^th Canon.

Therefore to bow at the name of Iesus is lawfull and necessary at time of diuine seruice.

4 Argument

From the latitude of our duty,

All Religious Church-honour is to be giuen to Iesus in time of divine seruice.

Bowing at the name of Iesus is religious Church-honour. Therefore bowing at the name of Iesus is to be giuen to Iesus in time of diuine seruice. It is adoration so the Fathers, and Master Prinne at his compares.

[Page 88]

5 Argument

From the intent of S ^t Paules exhortation.

To be humble is necessary at time of divine seruice. To bow at the name of Iesus is to be humble. Therefore to bow at the name of Iesus is necessary at time of diuine seruice. S ^t Paule teacheth humility at the 5 ^th verse.

6 Argument

Is a demonstration.

1 There is the cause: Iesus by dying deseru'd bowing of the knee at his name. 2 There is the effect: which is bowing the knee. 3 There is the subiect, which is the Church.

Thus:

Where Iesus deseru'd by his death, bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus, there must be bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus.

In the Church, Iesus deserued by his death that there should be bowing of the knee at the name of Iesus.

Therefore in the Church there must be bowing the knee at the name of Iesus. But is not the death of Iesus worthy of knee-honour? Heard-hearted Blasphemy!

7 Argument

From Gods gift.

Whatsoeuer God hath giuen to Iesus we acknowledge to be due vnto him. To bow at the name of Iesus in time of diuine seruice God hath giuen Iesus. Therefore to bow at the name of Iesus in time of diuine seruice wee must acknowledge to be due to him. The Minor is true. For God hath giuen Iesus all Power: and therefore the Church must honour Iesus with internall, and externall honour.

8 Argument

From the proportion of Iesus his merit.

Iesus deserued grace for the whole man: therefore grace in euery part of man must serue Iesus: therefore the regenerates mans knee must bow to Iesus in the time of grace.

9 Argument

This proposition is true of corporall, and spirituall knees, [Page 89] At the name of Iesus every knee shall bow: therefore Iesus is the name at which the Churches knees must bow.

And now you may know evidently: that Iesus is the name at which euery knee must bow: whether they be knees of the regenerate or of the glorified. And let Master Prinne be ashamed of his fighting against Iesus, and his Church. This is his folly: he hath dishonoured Iesus, and so the king, the Vice-Gerent of the Lord Iesus. And is he not affrayde?

Concerning the Turning of Communion-Tables into Altars, That is contrary to the Scripture Mar. 14. 18. Luc: 22. 21. But why should not we bow towards the Holy Communion-Table: though it be neither scripture nor canon, to bind vs thus to bow: yet an orderly decent ceremony may and ought to be admitted into the Church: so our Church teacheth. There is sufficient reason; why we should bow towards or at the Holy Comunion-table. For we must bow at his Maiesties Chaire of State, this is a knowne truth: and the King is Iesus his Deputie in his Dominions. The Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus, his cheifest place of presence in our Church is the Holy Communion-table, and therfore we may bow thereat without Idolatry, to testify thereby the honour that belongs to the Almighty King. Seeing Iesus is the saving king, our king of glory, we should bow there, which is the signe of rhe place, where he was most despised, dishonoured, and crucified. So we shall be good souldiers of the Lord Iesus, & stout warriers against our Saviours mortall Adversaries, even in our very gesture. And now M ^r. Prinne assuredly know, that Reverent, and orthodoxly learned Bishop Andrewes D ^r Boyes M ^r Hooker Zanchius were no Romanizing Protestants: and that M ^r Adams, and Giles Widdowes doe truly, and resolutely hould all our Churches tenents of faith in the 39 Articles, of Gods Holy worship in the common praier-booke, and Ecclesiasticall obedience in the Canons 141. which no Puritan will endure; because he is a kind of stiffe Iesuit in his opinion, and practise. His, and the Papists ends are all one: though their waies to [Page 90] their ends doe differ so much, as the scripture bafled, and the Church corrupted.

And now let M ^r Prinne, and his private freinds forbeare to dispute against the 18 ^th Canon, for tis the rule of Reformation, to cause the renewing of Bowing at the name of Iesus, where 'tis neglected. Let them not denie, that Philip: 2. is the fundamentall precept, to teach Christians to bow humbly, & reverently, when Iesus is named at divine service: for S ^t Paule thereby did teach the Philippians a duty due to Iesus, which he calls bowing with the knee. M ^r Prinnes Authors call that bowinw adoration, an inward, and outward adoration, deserued by the lowly humility of Iesus, and giuen by the Father. M ^r Prinne doth belieue the scripture. 'Tis well if in the proper sence, The Canon he belieues. Well, if he did, and his owne Authors: for shame these he cannot deny. Then let him, & his freinds bow at the name of Iesus propter meritū, & praemium, because the obedience of Iesus is rewarded with this degree of glory: which is a name aboue every name, and therefore it is to bee honored with the knees of Grace, and Glory.

M ^r Prinne vnderstand, for you owe knee-obedience to the Lord Iesus, or els He is not the commanding, and deseruing Master of the knee. You compell me to call you according to your exposition of Philip. 2. 10. the Allegoricall Origen of these daies: your knees are turn'd metaphors, and you similitudo hominis the shadow, or likenes of a man, and so your bowing at the name of Iesus is Metaphoricall. Vnthankfull divinity! Heartles knee! Ill disposed ignorance! Because you are so wilfull in defence of your error, I dare you to dispute face to face in the Schooles &c. that you may no longer trouble the Church: for the writing violence of a Schismatique is impudent, and endles. It is certaine that you are more will than intellect, therefore your submission to Iesus, to his Vice-Gerent the King, and to the Church may become you well. If you dare not dispute, and will not conforme, then write no more for shame.

FINIS.

[Page]

ERRATA.

PAg. 1. read Rhapsody for Ropsody. p 1. r. Schismatical for Shismaticall. p. 1. r. which for with are &c. p. 4. r. dilemma for delemma. p. 4. r. peculiar for perculiar. p. 17. r. reference for reuerence. p. 19. r. euill for ewill. p. 20. r. genu for genus. p. 20. r. flectitur for flectiter. p. 21. r. concilii for conilii. p. 21. r. Emmanuel for Emmavel. p. 21, r. and for annd. p. 26. r. literally for litterally. p. 28. r. vt ei coelestia for coelestia &c. p. 39. r. reference for reverence. p. 53. r. interpreters for interpreter. p. 54. r. come for ome. p. 59. humility for humity. p. 62. r. poplite for polite p. 65. r. Orosius for Orotius p. 73. r. must not for mustn ot. p. 80. termino for termiuo.

CErtaine others there be, whereof M. Prinne hath admonished me, which I correct thus.

Docter Willets Century, for the Magdeburgians. p. 16.

Read Caluin at the 9. verse quoting the Sorbonists, but not at the 10. p. 16.

SEing that he is so quick sighted to see the Mote in mine eie. When he hath perused my booke, he shall finde cause, to take the beame out of his owne eie, He can neuer satisfy his priuate friends, seeing he hath falfified 36. texts of scriptures, and 120. and more particular places of Interpreters, as it appeares by my 6. reasons at the examination of his owne Authers.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.