Lame Giles Halting
The source for this document is https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A10188.0001.001
Project Note
This is licensed under Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND. This license allows reusers to copy and distribute the material in any medium or format in unadapted form only, for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator.
The source of this document is the Early English Books Online (EEBO-TCP) website. Those books were transcribed in a character for character manner and can be very cumbersome to read since there was no standard spelling during that time. Many spelling variations such as "unlesse", "vnlesse", and "vnles" regularly appear.
This project was conceived to clean up those books as much as possible and make them more accessible to the interested reader, leading to the creation of a massive list of variant spellings and their corrections. This was used to clean up the text, but is of course only as complete as the list itself. Because of the nature of the original transcription, some words have missing characters or places where the original language (e.g., Greek) was not transcribed. This effort does not change that. Be aware that the original transcription can also be faulty and in some cases entire sentences may be missing.
Although this is no substitute for a properly compared, proofed, and scholarly edition, I believe that the result is a document which is far more accessible, particularly for searching for terms using standard spelling. The document has been cleaned and presented in what I hope is a pleasing and useful format for the vast majority of Christian brothers and sisters who just want access to read these spiritually nourishing works.
However, a word of warning: The Puritans were a very diverse group of people and their age was characterized with godliness, but also much upheaval, disputation and strife. They disagreed on many doctrines and some of these works contain less orthodox or Scriptural views than others. The reader is strongly advised to read with discernment, particularly if it is unknown whether author is trustworthy.
This project took a huge amount of time and skill to bring to fruition. I would particularly like to thank David Jonescue for the initial list of Puritans he found on EEBO and the concept behind this project as well as the continuous, unceasing efforts toward seeing this complete. Without his labor, this would not be available. Alex Sarrouf was invaluable in providing the initial list of over 7,000 spelling variations he had identified and corrected, as well as continuing to review more than 16,000 additions to that list for any typos.
Logan West
(with David Jonescue and Alex Sarrouf)
www.puritansearch.org
LAME GILES HIS HAVLTINGS OR, A BRIEFE SVRVEY OF GILES WIDDOWES HIS Confutation of an Appendix, concerning Bowing at the name of Jesus.
Together with a short Relation of the Popish Original and Progress of this groundless novel ceremony: Wherein Mr. WIDDOWES his manifold Forgeries, Oversights, and Absurdities are in part detected; and the point, Of bowing at the name of Jesus, together with that, of cringing to Altars and Communion-tables, is now more largely discussed.
By WILLIAM PRYNNE, an Vtter-Barrister of Lincolns Inn.
PROVERBS 26. 3. 5.
Horatius Sermonum lib. 2. Satyr. 3.
Imprinted for Giles Widdowes, MDCXXX.
To his much honored Mother, the famous vnparalleld University of Oxford, WILLIAM PRYNNE, an utter-Barrister of Lincolns Inn, wisheth all Grace, Honor, Happiness, and Tranquility.
MOST illustrious, most renowned Foster-Mother, (if it may be lawful for me, a quondam-son of yours, even now to style you so;) the tender regard I have of your unspotted fame, hath enforced me, out of my filial duty, to acquaint you with some notorious Errors, and more than ridiculous Oversights of an Individuum-vagum-son of yours, come forth in print of late under your Authority, as same (I hope but lying) hath reported; which if you correct not in due season, (as I presume you will) are like to make the world believe, that Ignoramus, to avoid the Plague, hath fled from Cambridge unto Oxford, this Vacation; and that you have given him, not only entertainment, but a new Commission, both to pen, to print, to act, and publish to the world, his Second part. This Son of yours, which I mean, is one Giles Widdowes, a poor halting widow in truth for brains and learning, of which he never had two mites: of whom I cannot say as Festus did of Paul, that too much learning did make him mad, but want of wit. These Errors and Oversights of his, with which I here acquaint you, are contained in a new divulged Book, much like the Author; entitled, The lawless kneelesse schismatical Puritan, &c. In confutation of which, I need say no more to such as know him, but, that Giles Widdowes Rectour of St. Martins Church in Oxford, was the Author; for whose use alone, (if we may believe the Title) it is imprinted, there being nothing in it fit for other men's use, unless it be to make them laugh these winter-nights. It was my chance in my late passage through Oxford towards London, to hear, that this ridiculous Pamphlet, (which made mirth enough in writing) was newly preferred (and that by public license) to the Press, to make the Author of it (no simple Ignoramus) a fool in print. Whereupon I repaired to the Printing-house, where I found the written Copy, (which I only turned over, not perused) so mangled, so interlined and razed by Mr. Page, and others who perused it before its approbation, that there was scarce one page in all the Coppie, in which there were not several written Errors, Absurdities and Impertinencies quite expunged; and if all of them had had the sign of the Cross upon their faces, as well as some, the Printer questionless should have had no work When I beheld so many Errors crossed in the written Copy, (perchance to please the Author, who in his Book hath made the Sign of the Cross a necessary Ceremony, he means (I take it) for to cross out his Oversights;) I expected none at all in the printed pages; on which I had no sooner cast mine eyes, but I espied divers Bedlam Errors, and those so gross, that I thought such visible notorious malefactors (whose very faces did proclaim their guiltiness, though their tongues were mute) could never pass through an University press, and not be pressed quite to death. Whereupon taking pity on the crazy Author, with whose many known infirmities I was of old experimentally acquainted, whiles I was a resident in Oriell college; and withal compassionating the oversight of the Licenser, who for fear of crossing out all the Book, (as he had crossed out very much) permitted such foul gross Errataes to pass uncrossed; (perchance because the Anti-puritan Author was here turned puritan, in good earnest, and would not suffer these Infants of his pure brain to be baptized with the Cross, for which he deserves a Censure:) For the anticipation of that great scandal & disreputation which I presaged might light on you, Deare Mother, for giving the least show of approbation 〈◊〉 ridiculous erroneous toys as these; as soon as I arrived at London, I wrote two Letters, the one to your present Vice-Chancellor; the other to your Son, Giles Widdowes. wherein I informed them privately of these ignorant absurd Mistakes, which were like to fly abroad in print; advising them to correct them in due season, before they were divulged, for fear they should eclipse your honor, and blur their own repute. The Copies of which Letters I shall here set down, that so your self and others may take notice, how fairly, how sincerely I have dealt both with you and them; and so see what cause I have to write thus to you in print, to clear both my own and your reputation.
The Letter I wrote to Mr. Vice-Chancellor, (in which I enclosed a short Survey of Mr. Widdowes his Errors, in this his Confutation of my Appendix, was this.
SIR, the reverend respect I bear unto my much honored Mother, the University of Oxford, and to your self as her Vice-Chancellor, hath induced me to present you with the enclosed short Survey of Mr. Widdowes his Answer to my Appendix, authorized by you for the press, (as friends inform me) through which it hath well-nigh passed: In which there are so many gross mistakes; so many false, absurd, impertinent Quotations; so many illiterate, ridiculous brainsicke passages, exposing the frenticke Author to the lash, if not yourself the Licenser, and the University her self (whose Vice-Chancellor 〈◊〉 •• thorized, and whose Son hath penned, hath published so vain erroneous a Book) to unexpiable disgrace: that though they give an infinite advantage to my cause, (which needs no Patron but it self;) yet I have chosen rather to advise you privately as a friend, in time for to correct them before they fly abroad, in print, then to hazard your own, or the Universities reputation, in suppressing, in repenting the publication of them, when it is too late. For mine own part, I desire not to crush Mr. Widdowes his Infant in the cradle, as though I feared it, there being nothing in it worthy the Press, much less a Reply: but my desire is to conceal his known weakness, (if not the Universities and your own Oversight) by a timely discovery of his authorized gross mistakes; which if they should take printed wings, and fly about, (as they are almost ready to forsake their nest) I shall be forced in my own defense, to pass such a public Censure on them, as will not only scare the oft distracted Author out of his crazy wits, but draw perchance some blot of disreputation on yourself, who should not suffer such cackling •• raying wild-geese as these, to fly Cum privilegio from our Oxford presses. Thus referring this short enclosed Survey of a whole field of tares, and wild-oates, (which I would wish you to mow down in time) unto your grave consideration; I commend you with my best well-wishes unto God's direction: Resting
Lincolns Inn. October 20. 1630.
The unfeigned tenderer of your own, and the University of Oxfords reputation, WILLIAM PRYNNE.
The Survey enclosed in this my Letter, (which I shall now entitle, Lame Giles his haultings; Or, The Brainlesse All-knee Superstitious Anti-puritan ) was this which followeth.
A brief Survey of Mr. Giles Widdowes his Answer to Mr. Prynne his Appendix.
IN this Answer of M. Widdowes, I shall desire you to consider these six particulars.
First, his injurious imputation of many false Quotations to me, which Quotations are all true. To instance in some few.
Page 5: He writes in general; That I have falsified [ 1] 15, nay 36 Scriptures, and fourscore primitive Fathers and others. Whereas he can never prove, that I have falsified one of them: The most of the Fathers and Authors quoted in my Appendix he never as yet so 〈◊〉 as read; to conclude then that I have falsified them 〈◊〉 ever he hath viewed them, is but an over-auda 〈…〉 Censure, yea a forged Calumnie; as may app •••••• these particular Instances.
Page 16: He taxeth me for misquoting Calvin on Phil: 29, 10. asfirming; That Calvin makes no mention of the Sorbonists in this place of his. Whereas if he will be pleased to use the help of his spectacles to review his [ 1] oversight, he shall find Calvin writing thus of the Sorbonists in that very place. Plusquam ridiculi sunt Sorbonici sophistae, qui ex praesenti loco colligunt, genu flectendum esse, quoties nomen Jesus pronunciatur, quasi vox esset magica, quae totam in sono vim haberet inclusam. Which saying of Calvin is repeated and approved by Marlorat on Phil: 2, 9, 10.
In the same 16 page, ô ridiculous ignorance! he blames [ 2] me for misquoting the Magdeburgian Centuries: in the 2. Cent: cap: 5: where there is nothing concerning bowing at the name of Jesus, no mention of the Sorbonists: When as my quotation in my Appendix, is Dr. Willets Synopsis Papismi: (which is divided into Centuries) Century 2. Error. 51. Where Dr. Willet handles this point of Bowing at the name of Jesus, by way of Appendix; condemning it for a Popish Error, a superstitious Custom contrary to their own popish Canons and Decrees. An Authority which Mr. Widdowes can never answer.
In the 17 page, he writes; That page 398, and 399. of Dr. Whitaker his Answer to Mr. William Rainolds Refutation, are false Quotations. But if Mr. Widdowes, or any man else will be pleased to peruse this Answer of [ 3] Dr. Whitaker's, printed at Cambridge by John Legat, Anno 159 • , p: 398, 399. (the Impression which I followed in my Appendix) he shall find the Quotation true both for page and matter; and Dr. Whitaker's opinion point-blank against the very bowing at the name of Jesus only, which (saith he) may breed a more dangerous Error than any it can remove, to wit, that Jesus is better than Christ, which is wicked to imagine.
[ 4] Page 21: He censures me for injuring Pope Gregory the 10: and that in two particulars: first, for misquoting, secondly, for perverting his words. The misquoting is, of Sexti Decretalia, lib: 2, Tit: 23, cap: 2: for Lib: 3: De Immunitate Ecclesiae, cap: Decet: 6. The perverting is in my putting of only, for chiefly. For the misquotation, if it please Mr. Widdowes to survey my Anti-Arminianism, p: 193, number 5, in the margent; he shall find there, that I have quoted the Book right: For it is there, Sexti Decretalia, lib: 3, Tit: 23, cap: 2: and so it is in my Appendix too, in most Copies; if it be not so in his, let him blame the Printer, not myself; so that the book is not misquoted by me. And whereas Mr. Widdowes to correct my false Quotation, writes; that it is, lib: 3, De Immunitate Ecclesiae, cap: Decet: 6: I must needs inform him, that, De Immunitate Ecclesiae, hath reference not to lib: 3: but to Tit: 23. and for the chapter, it is cap: 2: not cap: Decet: 6. So that his correction is false, my Quotation true. For the perverting of Pope Gregory's words, I must needs reply, that I have not falsified Pope Gregory's words, but Mr. Widdowes hath grossly misrecited mine: For whereas I write, that Pope Gregory enjoins men to bow [especially] at the Mass; Mr. Widdowes would thrust in, only at the Mass: So that Mr. Widdowes grossly injures me (not I Pope Gregory) in these and sundry other particulars of this nature, [ 2] which for brevity sake I here omit.
Secondly, his falsifying and gross mistake of Councils, Fathers, and other Authorities alleged by him in his answer, to justify the bowing at the name of Jesus. For instance in all the Councils, and Fathers, which he quotes for the Antiquity of this duty.
Page 22. To bow at the name of Jesus is the 20. Canon of the Council of Nice: whereas that Canon only enjoins men to pray standing, (not kneeling) between Easter and Whitsuntide, and on every Lord's day, in token of Christ's resurrection.
Page 23. The Council of Ephesus consisting of 200 Bishops against Nestorius, hath inserted bowing at the name of Jesus among their Acts. So Binius: Tom: 1: cap: 5: p: 685: I here being no such thing in Binius, nor in that Ephesine Council, which commands men only, to worship Jesus with the worship of God: but not to bow their knees at the mention of his name; which they do not at the recital of the name of God.
Page 21. He quotes Cyril of Alexandria, for this bowing: and what are his words? Adoramus Emanuelem, &c. Ergo, we must bow at the name of Jesus: A strange inconsequent: Ergo we must bow at the name Emmanuel, (which none ever do) had been far better.
In the same page, he quotes Athanasius to Adelphius pag: 69. And what are his words? Ideo adoravit, &c. Athanasius speaks it of rerum natura, when the rocks did cleave, &c. at the passion of Christ: Mr. Widdowes applies it to the Church, in bowing at the name of Jesus: A gross mistake.
Page 22: He quotes St. Jerome on Isaiah c: 45. for bowing at the name of Jesus. What are his words? Moris est Ecclesiastici, &c. (I will add the concealed words to make some sense) Christo genu flectere: It is an Ecclesiastical use to pray kneeling to Christ: Ergo to bow at the name of Jesus. Risum teneatis amici? Is not this more ridiculous then Ignoramus?
Page 16, 17. He misquoteth Calvin, Marlorat, the Centuries, Mr. Cartwright, and Dr. Whitaker, who all conclude against him in this point of bowing.
[ 3] Thirdly, the ridiculous absurdity of his Quotations, and his Inferences from them: for example, page 22. He quotes the 20, Canon of the Council of Nice, from which he must argue thus: The Council of Nice commands men to pray standing (not kneeling) on Lord's-days, & on Pentecost, in remembrance of Christ's resurrectiō: Ergo to bow at the name of Jesus. Page 23. He quotes the Council of Ephesus; from whence he thus disputes: The Council of Ephesus enjoins men to worship Christ crucified, as God: Ergo to bow at the name of Jesus. The like Inferences he brings from Cyril Athanasius, Jerome, Calvin, the Centurists, Dr. Whitaker, and others: page 16, 17, 21, 22: (and so page 40 to 47.) All these accord, that Christ must be adored, because he is God: Ergo we must bow at the name of Jesus. Were ever such consequents heard from an University man, a Logician, a Metaphysical Divine, who is better acquainted with Essentialls, Essentiates, and their modalities, (as it seems by his 2, 3, 13 and 14 pages) then with the question now in controversy, or with any Article of his Creed?
Fourthly, the Tautologies, Chasmes, confusion, ill-connection, and immethodicall disorder of his style, his matter, which hath no more dependancy, order, art, or method, then Tom Coriots Travells, or Lady Davis her Comment upon Daniel, whose halting style Lame Giles hath followed.
Fifthly, his vain idle terms of art, brought in by [ 5] head and shoulders, to make scholars think he were once more frentique, or Country Clownes believe he were some Conjurer: Witness his Essentialls, Essentiates, and their modalities, which have confounded the fanatique Professor, (to wit the Author) and overthrown his chair: page 2, 3: His real moral Correlation, his internal Relations, Entities, Causations, Inherence, Products, and mutual dependence, &c: which Mr. Prynne understands not: page 14, nor yet Mr, Widdowes himself as I suppose; if his brains be now as crazy as I have known them.
Sixthly, his absurd invective scurrilous railing passages [ 6] against the Church and Doctrine of Geneva, which Doctrine is the same with ours: page 6, 7. A passage so vile, so venomous, that it deserves at least the Ferula, if not the rod of his Mother University, who would blush to authorize such absurdities, such lies, such passages and frentique Treatises for the Press, as these.
Ex ungue leonem; by this short Survey of some few pages, you may judge of all this Animals book, how false, how vain it is.
This (my dear Mother) was the Survey of some few printed pages of Mr. Widdowes his Confutation, which I sent enclosed in my Letrer to your Vice-Chancellor, who had time enough to correct them, to suppress them ere the book came forth.
At the very selfsame time I wrote another friendly Letter to Mr. Widdowes, in which I admonished him of these his oversights, advising him to correct them ere his Confutation came to public light; the Contents of which Letter • (that so you may see my condour towards him, who is so full of causeless gall and bitterness towards me) I have here subscribed.
MR. Widdowes, I understand that your Answer to my Appendix, about bowing at the name of Jesus, is almost finished at the Press; in which Answer of your • there are sundry false Quotations, Inconsequents, Oversights, and gross mistakes, which for College and old-acquaintance sake I thought good to admonish you of in time, that so you might correct them before you publish them to the world, for fear of after-claps. It is not the common use of adverse Writers, to acquaint one another privately with their slips before hand; but my love and mildness towards you is such, in regard we were once fellow-collegians, that I would rather anticipate, than take advantage of your errors. Mistake me not, as though I wrote this to you to suppress your answer: alas, it's so illiterate, so absurdly impertinent in most things, that I rather pity than fear it: My only meaning is, to forestall your printed Oversights, (not your Answer: ) which are so many, so absurd, that most will deem you cracked-braind when you penned, if not the Licenser hare-braind when he authorized them. What these your Misquotations, Oversights, and Absurdities are, you may learn from Mr. Vice-Chancellor, to whom I have now sent a Survey of them, which I would wish you to peruse. To give you a touch of some of them in a word: Dictum sapienti sat est. Page 16. You tax me for misquoting the Magdeburgian Centuries, when as I quote not them, but Dr. Willets 2. Century of Popish Errors: Error: 51. Page 17. You censure me for misquoting Dr. Whitaker: p: 398, 399: which quotation is true in that Edition of Cambridge: 1590: which I follow. Page 16: You reprehend me for misquoting Calvin on Phil: 2: 9, 10: as if he made there no mention of the Sorbonists; as in truth he doth. Page 22. You vouch the 20 Cannon of the Council of Nice, which commands men to pray standing on Lord's-days and Pentecoft, as a direct authority for bowing at the name of Jesus. Page 21, 22, 23. You absurdly misapply the passages you quote out of the Council of Ephesus, Cyril, Athanasius, Jerome, and others, to bowing at the name of Jesus, when as their words import not any such thing, as you may see, if you will but peruse them once again. These few, together with an hundred such like oversights, which I spare to mention, are sufficient to inform you, how open you lie unto my lash, which you may chance to feel, if you will needs make yourself an Ignoramus, or a Fool in print. Stripes are prepared for the back of Fools, Prov: 19, 29: and I have some in store for you, if you expunge not these your errors ere they come to public light. Lo, I have forewarned you as a private Friend, and if you take not this my warning; you must excuse me if I fall foul upon these your Oversights as an open Adversary. Thus much for your bowing.
For your Schismaticall Puritan, which you strive to justify in your first and second pages. I must inform you of 4 mistakes committed in it: The first is in the very Definition of a Puritan, which most besides yourself define to be, not, A Protestant Non-conformist, as you; but, A Protestant scared out of his wits: and how near this definition may concern yourself, and whether it makes not you, at least a simple, if not a double Puritan, I leave you to consider. The second is in the Genus of a Puritan; which you make a Protestant, but falsely, yea absurdly; since a Protestant is not the Genus of Novatians, Catherists, Donatists, or Papists; (who were never yet reputed Protestants, and were long before the name of Protestants was known;) who yet are true and real Puritans both by your own and others confession. The third is in the Differentia Essentialis of a puritan; which, say you, is a Nonconformist: which difference, as it excludes all Papists from being Puritans, because they are most conformable to any ceremonies, especially to this, of bowing at the name of Jesus; (which contradicts your first Species of a Puritan, in which you include the Papist:) so it makes all foreign reformed Churches, Puritans, (which I hope you dare not say) they being not conformable to our Cerememonies: and withal it thwarts Bishop Montague's distinction, of Conformable and Inconformable Puritans: of Puritans in Doctrine, not in Discipline: of Tantum non in Episcopat • Puritani: and I hope you dare not control this learned Bishop. The fourth, is in the Species of a Puritan; which say you are ten; there being ten several Puritanities: But this is only Endymionis somnium. For the Perfectist, the first Species; which say you is the Novatian Catherist and Papist, are no Protestants; Ergo no Species of a Paritan, whose Genus you make a Protestant. Moreover, the Brownists and Anabaptists (to omit the other several Species of Puritans, which have no specifical difference between them) are no Protestants, neither in doctrine, nor in discipline: Protestants disclaim them, and they Protestants, from whom they sever and divide themselves even altogether: therefore they are no Puritans, because no Protestants. These several Oversights I thought good to recommend to your second & more refined sober thoughts; which if you impudently publish to the world without fear or wit, before some caftigations pass upon thē, are as so many wandering Bedlās very like to taste of the whipping-post: and I doubt not but their stripes will prove your smart. Thus desiring your favorable acceptation of this my friendly admonition, together with the resolution of these ten Queries in your Reply to this my Letter, or in some Appendix to your Answer: viz.
[ 1] What ancient Fathers or Authors can be produced to prove this bowing at the recital of the name of Jesus • a duty of the Text, and what are their names?
[ 2] What Fathers or ancient Records do testify, that bowing at the name of Jesus was used in the primitive Church; and what are their words?
[ 3] What ancient Authorities there are before Zanchius, Whitguift, or H •• ker, which testify, that bowing at the name of Jesus was used in the time of Arius?
Whether there be any one Father, who speaks directly [ 4] and punctually of bowing at the name of Jesus; and who he is if any such there be?
Whether Popes, or Popish Councils and Authors [ 5] were not the first broachers, and chief propagatours of this Ceremony?
What difference is there between Papists and Protestants [ 6] bowing at the name of Jesus, since Protestants condemn them for this Ceremony, and yet do use it?
What reasons are there, that men should bow only [ 7] at the name of Jesus, more than at the name of Savior, which is the same with Jesus; or at the name of Emmanuel, God, or the like?
Why men should rather bow at the mention of the [ 8] second than of the first person in the Trinity, since Christ himself tells us, John 5, 23: That all men must honor the Son, even as they honor the Father, and no otherwise: and Phil: 2, 10: informs us, that Christ by this his exaltation is only, in the glory (as the Fathers and others read it) not above the glory of God the Father, at whose name none ever bow?
Whether the sole bowing at the name of Jesus, be [ 9] not superstition in the opinion of Dr. Willet, Dr. Fulke, Pareus, and other Protestant Writers? And why men should rather bow at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus, than at the sight of it in a Bible, a wall, a glass-window, or in the frontispice of a Jesuits works, before all which it is prefixed; since at the name of Jesus, may be as aptly applied to the eye, as to the ear; to the sight, as to the sound or hearing of the name of Jesus?
Whether the not bowing at every recital of the name [ 10] of Jesus in time of Divine service be a sin or no? (as it must needs be if it be a duty of the Text:) And why it should be a duty in time of Divine service and Sermons only, (in which of all other times it is most needless to express men's reverence, subjection, and high respect to Jesus: because every part of divine service, especially kneeling in prayer, prayers unto Jesus, and in the name of Jesus, are nothing else but an ample testimony of our service, thankfulness and subjection to him as our Lord and Savior) rather than a duty at other times, when men show less reverence, and submission unto Jesus; and are more apt to abuse and profane his sacred name?
I take my farewell of you; commending your Errors to your own castigation, and yourself to Mr. Vice-Chancellors better instruction: and so I rest
Lincolns Inn. October 20. 1630.
Your loving Friend, WILLIAM PRYNNE •
TO these Letters of mine I never yet received answer, though they were both delivered before this Confutation was fully printed. Which Confutation now flying abroad without any castigations of these forequoted Errors, notwithstanding these two Letters, I thought it my duty with all convenient speed to acquaint your Motherhood with them, with these two Letters, and the enclosed brief Survey, that so you might the better discern the brazen-faced impudency of your Son Giles Widdowes, who hath published these his Errors to the world, to your disgrace, for all my friendly advice; that so you may more justly tutor him at least, if not chastise him for these his frenticke Oversights, which may draw a greater blur upon yourself, than ever they can cast on me, or him, whose reputation is so small, that he is not capable of disgrace.
And now, Deare Mother, that you may know what cause you have in time to censure, to correct this untutered Son of yours, (whom you may do well to set to school some twenty years longer, before you suffer him to print anymore, at leastwise under your authority, which I suppose he hath now abused;) I shall desire you to take into your grave consideration, and then into your Censure, these few ensuing particulars, which I have gleaned since his book was published.
To pass by his false Quotations of Binius Council: Tom: 1, page 670, for 671: and page 685, for 687. Edit: Coloniae Agrip: 1608. Of Athanasius to Adelphius, pag 69, for page 53, 54, Edit: Parisijs: 1608. Of Irenaeus, page 51, for page 38, 39, Edit: Basiliae, 1571. Of Hilary, lib: 9, De Trin: p: 135, for 64, Edit: Colon: Agrip: 1617. Of Cyril Thesauri, l: 8, p: 99, for p: 190, Edit: Parisijs 1604: the Editions in Sir Thomas Bodlie his Library, which Mr. Widdowes (who hath exchanged all his Books for Cans) hath followed: together with his Quotation of Athanasius Oratio 2. Contra Arianos, for lib: 3, Contra Arianos, p: 101. Which perchance were only Errors of the Printer, though they are not corrected: as are these for which he taxeth me: pag. 67, viz Theophilact, for Theophilus: St. Cyril: lib: 17, for lib: 11, on St: John: and lib: 13, for lib: 12, Thesauri: Gaiae Papae, for Gaij: Leo Epist: Decret: Ep. 14, 81, & 95: for 15, 83, & 97. Aelredus Sermo 1, for Sermo 3: Koming stein for Koneigstein: the chapters and pages of all which are truly vouched. I shall remember you only of these his following gross mistakes.
Page 44: he quotes Origen on Philip: 2: there being no [ 1] such book of his now extant.
Page 67: he taxeth me for quoting Ambrosij Hexaëmeron: [ 2] (ô the ridiculousnesse of this learned Critique! ) for Hexameroon: When as the printed Titles both of Ambrose, and the Latin Basil: are Hexaëmeron; as I have quoted them: not Hexameroon; there being no such Latin word in any Latin Dictionary or Author that I have ever met with.
Ibid: page 67: he writes; that St. Cyrils 5 lib: in Hesai ••• [ 3] cap: 55, p: 362: is a Non ens; when as in the very Edition of my Cyril (Parisijs 1608) which himself doth follow, it is both Ens and Verum too.
[ 4] Ibidem, he avers, that Primasius saith nothing on Rom: 14. yet he hath a Commentary on that chapter; and on the 11 verse he writes thus: Omnes enim stabimus ante tribunal Dei: Deum esse Christum qui judicaturus est non dubites: Scriptum est enim, Vivo ego, dicit Dominus; quoniam mihi flectetur et genu omenis lingua confitebitur, &c. Where this bowing of every knee to Christ, is referred by this Father to the day of judgment.
[ 5] Ibidē, (to show himself more than an ordinary Ignoramus) he writes, that neither Luther nor Ferus hath a Postil on Palm-sunday. When as Luther (as you may find in his Editiō of Postils: Argētorati, 1533, fol: 229, &c.) hath 3 several Postils on Palm-sunday; & Ferus hath no less then 10 Postills on that very day: Witness his Postillae, pars 2. Antwerpiae 1554: fol: 156: to 184: & Lugduni 1554: fol: 849 to 896. That Ferus nor Luther then have no Postills on Palme-Sunday, when as they have 13 at the least, is a part of the Antipuritans Legend, worthy to be registered in St. Whetstones works, in which Mr. Widdowes (as it seems by this) is too well read.
[ 6] Ibidem, he records, that Mr. Tyndale hath nothing but a Prologue on the Philippians: whereas in his English Bible, which the statute of 34 & 35 H. 8, c: 1: doth mention; he hath Notes upon this very Text of Phil: 2: 9: 10: (which Mr. Widdowes it seems hath never read) where he makes the subjection of all things unto Christ at last, the only bowing at the name of Jesus intended in that Text.
[ 7] Ibidem, he concludes, that because Petrus Mattheus writes the 〈◊〉 of the Popes Constitutions, and Philip Matthaeus writes civil law; ergo there is no such book as Matthaeus his Postills, which I have quoted: Whereas if he had but viewed the very two first lines of the selfsame pag. of the Oxford Catalogue, out of which he hath quoted Petr: and Phil: Matthaeus, he might have found Johannes Matthaeus his Postills, in Epistolas Dominicales Viteburgae: 1581: reimprinted. Viteburgae 1584: where there is at p: 173: to 179: (if Mr. Widdowes understands what Dominica Palmarum, is in English) a Postill on Palme-Sunday. Besides him there is one M. Matthaeus Iudex, who hath written Postills on all the Dominicall Epistles, and on the Epistle on Palme-Sunday too: printed islebij 1578: both these interpret this text of the Philippians, as I have vouched them. For this learned Metaphysical Divine then to conclude, that there is no such book, as Matthaeus his postils, because Phil: and Petr: Matthaeus have writ none such, is but the gross Nonsequel of a silly Ignoramus, who should have known more, and written less.
Ibidem, he writes, that Chytraeus hath no Postills: (for [ 8] he takes no hold that I can find, of Chrytaeus, for Chytraeus, which was but the Printers transposition of one letter.) Indeed there are no such Postils of his in the Oxford Catalogue; and thence grew this error, with that of Luther's and Ferus not having Postils too. But Mr. Widdowes must know, that all printed books are not in the Oxford Catalogue: I have at least 50 myself, which the Oxford Catalogue (increased much since the last Impression) never mentions; and among the rest David Chytraeus his Postils on the Dominicall Epistles, printed Vitebergae 1576. is one; where p: 156 to 169: there is a Postill on Palme-Sunday, where he interprets the text of Phil: 2. 9 • 10. as I in my Appendix do.
Ibidem, he writes, That Mr. Charke was but a Kentish [ 9] puritan: When as he was a reverend learned Divine, appointed by the State to dispute with Campian the Jesuit in the Tower: and if any man will be pleased to peruse his Conference, he shall find him the acutest Disputant of all those learned men that conferred with him. These 8 last gross oversights (worthy to be registered in the next new Impression of Ignoramus, or the ship of Fools) are included within the circumference of 15 lines: And how many such like may you then expect throughout the Book? But I pass from these to worser Errors.
[ 10] Page 72, 73, he writes thus: That the ring in marriage is necessarily deduced from Matth: 19 v: 4, 5, 6. The sign of the Cross, from Matth: 16, 24. Kneeling at the Lord's Supper, from Psal: 95, 6. Procession, from Mat: 28, 19. The Surplice, from Rev. 19, 8. Standing at the Creed, from Ephes. 6. 14. The 4 cornered Cap, ( Risum teneatis? ) from Ephes: 4. 11, 12, 13, 14. The penitential sheet, (which me thinks he should never have ranked in equipage with the surplesse) from Matth: 11, 21. And then he concludes thus, (though Durand out of whom he hath stolen it, dares not do it.) These signs, which are express Scripture, (ô the monstrous Metaphisicall Divinity of this fanaticke Professor, who dares make these thing • , anything, Scripture) are universal and so necessary Ceremonies of the Catholic Church. And is it not time for you (good Mother) to pack away this Son of yours, (not to Amsterdam, or New-England) but to Bedlam, for this his mad Divinity?
Page 25, 26. He argues, that bowing at the name of Jesus is a duty of the Text: and why? Spell, and then it's [ 11] thus by articulation. At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, &c. An Argumēt much like to that of the Papists Hoc est corpus meum, Mat: 26, 26. Ergo, the bread is the very real body of Christ. Tu es Petrus, &c. Mat: 16, 18. Ergo, Peter is the head (they should rather say the foot, because the foundation) of the Church. This is all he hath written to prove it a duty of the Text: And this all is nothing, as I have largely proved in my Appendix.
Page 28. He writes, that, In nomine, & ad nomen: In the name, or at the name of Jesus are both one: And [ 12] why so? Because in Grammar, In a place, or at a place, ( viz. in a Tavern, or at a Tavern; in an Alehouse, or at an Alehouse ) are both one to Mr. Widdowes; you may be sure to find him in or at either, Non obstante the 75 Canon. But are in, and at a place all one? This is not always true. In loco, and ad locum, differ much; though apud locum, and in loco, may accord. No man can say that, Our Father which art in heaven, is the same, with Our Father which art at heaven: in heaven, and at heaven are not all one. Stars in heaven, is good sense: stars at heaven, nonsense. Mr. Widdowes is in his Cap, his Surplice, Gowne and Hood, when he reads 8 a clock prayers, this is good English: (though even then he bows not at the name of Jesus, as I saw by experience since this book of his was in the Press, which makes me think he believes this Doctrine of his to be erroneous, because he puts it not in practice;) But to say that he reads prayers at his Cap, his Surples • e, Gowne or Hood, is almost as great a solecism, as to aver, that Mr. Widdowes wit was not in, but at his head, when he made this curious observation. But what if in a place or at a place, in a time or at a time, &c. be all one: are therefore in nomine, & ad nomen, in the name, and at the name of Jesus, all one? They differ in words, in phrase, cases, in sense; therefore they are not one. See it in instances. To pray in the name, and at the name; to believe in the name, and at the name; to cast out Devils in the name or at the name of Jesus, are different things: Therefore to bow in, or at his name, is not the same. If any should say, I believe at God, for I believe in God At the name of God Amen, for In the name of God Amen; At the Kings name, for in the Kings name: Would not children hoote at him for a Nonsence Fool? Yet this is Mr. Widdowes his English, Grammar, and Divinity; much like his englishing of Athanasius his Latin, and others, in his 21, 22, and 23 pages, whom he englisheth as punctual witnesses for bowing at the name of Jesus, when as there is not one such word, or intimation of it in their Latin.
Page 30, 31, 32, 33, 81, 82. He doth by way of necessary [ 13] inference teach us, That Jesus was more humbled, hated, persecuted and derided of the Jews, than Christ: (as if Jesus and Christ were not one person:) That the name of Jesus was more vilified and hated than the name of Christ; and therefore for this only reason (which he much insisteth on) we must bow at the name of Jesus only, not at the name of Christ, of Savior, and the like. A false conclusion from dangerous premises, which sunder Christ and Jesus, who are one in all things, in humiliation, in passion, in exaltation, in power, in Majesty, dominion and glory. If we look upon our Savior's humiliation and passion, the Scripture informs us, that Christ was incarnate and born into the world, as well as Jesus, Mat. 1, 16, c: 2. 4. Luke 2 11 That Christ was mocked, crucified, humbled, despised, put to death for our sins, and nailed to the Cross, (which is always styled the Cross of Christ) as well as Jesus: Mat: 26, 63, 67, 68. Acts 3, 18, c: 4, 26. Gal: 2, 20 c: 3, 13 c: 6, 14. Rom: 3: 8, c: 8, 34, c: 5, 8, c: 14, 9. 1 Cor: 15, 3, c: 1, 23 1 Pet: 1, 19, c: 2, 21, 23, 24, c: 3: 18, c: 4, 13, 14, 16. That we were redeemed, sprinkled from an evil conscience, justified, and made nigh unto God, by the blood, the precious blood of Christ, [not Jesus:] 1 Pet: 1, 19. Hebr: 9, 14. Rom: 5, 8, 9, Gal: 2, 17. Ephes: 2, 13. That God was in Christ [not Jesus] reconciling the world unto himself, 2 Cor: 5, 19, 20. That Christ [not Jesus] redeemed and made us free, Gal: 3, 13, c: 5 1. Hence Luke 24, 26, & 46: Christ himself speaks thus to his Disciples: Ought not Christ [not Jesus] to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? Thus it is written, and thus it behooveth Christ [not Jesus] to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. And hence the Minister by our Churches appoinment, in the administration of the holy Cōmmunion, saith thus: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, &c. Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee, &c. Christ therefore was humbled, suffered and did as much for us as Jesus; and therefore in this regard deserves as much reverence, love and duty from us, as doth Jesus. If we reflect on Christ's exaltation; the Scriptures certify us: First, that Christ was raised again from the grave; and that by his resurrection [ 1] all his shall be raised up again at the last: Rom: 6, 4. 1 Cor: 15, 12, 13, 14, 22, Col: 3, 1. Secondly, that Christ [not Jesus] is exalted to the right hand of God his Father, [ 2] far above all principalities and powers, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but in the world to come, Angels, powers, Authorities, all things, being made subject to him: Eph: 1, 20, 21, 22. 1 Pet: 3, 21, 23. Col: 1, 7, to 28. c: 3, 1. 1 Cor: 15, 23, to 29. Thirdly, that God [ 3] hath quickened us together with Christ, [not Jesus] and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places with Christ, Eph: 1. 3. c: 2, 5, 6. Fourthly, that [ 4] God hath gathered together all things in Christ, [not Jesus] and that Christ [not Jesus] is all and in all: Eph: 1, 10. 23. Col: 3, 11. In this regard therefore Christ is as venerable, as worthy to be bowed to, as is Jesus If we consider the offices and titles of Christ, we shall find Christ as venerable every way as Jesus. For is Jesus a Savior? So is Christ: Luke 2, 11. John 4, 42. Eph: 5, 23. Phil: 3, 20. Is he a Mediator? So is Christ: 1 Tim: 2, 5. 1 John 2, 1. Is he the head of the Church? So is Christ: 1 Cor: 11, 3. Ephes: 4, 15. c: 5, 23. c: 1, 20, 22. Is he a King, a Lord, a King of Kings, and Lord of Lord's? So is Christ, Acts 2, 36. Luke 23, 2, c: 2, 11. 1 Cor: 8, 6: 1 Tim: 6, 14, 15, 16: Col. 3, 24. Rev: 11, 15, c: 12, 10, c: 20, 4 • 6. & by our own Churches confession after the Communion received; Glory be to god on high, &c. O Lord God, heavenly King, &c. for thou only art holy, thou only art the Lord, thou only O Christ [not Jesus] with the holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father. Is he the Judge of all men? So is Christ: whence the day of judgment is styled the day of Christ, and the place of judgment, the judgment seat of Christ, [not Jesus] 2 Cor: 5, 10. Rom: 14, 9, 10, Phil: 1, 10 & 2 • 16. Is he the Son of God? So is Christ, Luke 9 20 • Acts 4. 37, Mat: 16, 16. Is he God equal with his Father? So is Christ: Tit: 2. 13. 2 Pet: 1, 1. c: 2. 16, 17. and the second Article of our Church. Is he the Messias? So is Christ: John 1 • 41. chap: 4. 25. There is nothing recorded in Scripture of the humiliation, passion, exaltation, offices, titles, or sovereignty of Jesus; but the very selfsame thing is recorded of Christ: Whence these two names, Jesus and Christ, are for the most part joined together throughout the whole New Testament. If then we respect the person, offices, passion, or exaltation of Jesus, we shall find that he deserves as much capping and bowing when he is called Christ, as when he is styled Jesus. If we now reflect upon the names of Christ and Jesus, as they have reference to our Savior's person, we shall find: First, that our Savior was buffeted, spit upon and derided of the high Priests and Jews by the name of Christ, Matth: 26, 67, 68. not by the name of Jesus: and that they rent their clothes, and crucefied him, not for that he called himself Jesus; but because he said he was Christ the Son of the living God, Matth: 26, 63, 64, 65. Secondly, that the Scripture when it speaks of our Savior's sufferings, doth always style them, the sufferings of Christ, not of Jesus. Thirdly, that the Saints which suffer hatred or persecution for our Savior's sake; do suffer for him as he is styled Christ, not Jesus: Witness 1 Cor: 4, 9 10, 11. We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men: We are fools for Christ [not Jesus] sake: We are weak, we are despised, we are naked, persecuted, reviled, buffeted. And 2 Cor: 12, 10. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, inreproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ [not Jesus] sake. Witnes John 9, 22. Where the Jews agreed, that if any did confess that our Savior was Christ, [not Jesus] he should be put out of the Synagogue. & Mat: 24, 9. They shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated of all Nations for my Names sake. And what name is this? If any, then certainly the name of Christ, not Jesus: Witness, verse 5. Many shall come in my name saying, I am Christ: and verse 23, 24. If any man shall say unto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, believe it not: For there shall arise false Christ's, &c. Hence Hebr: 11, 24. We have mention of the reproach of Christ, [not Jesus.] Hence Col: 1, 24: St: Paul writes, That he did fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ [not Jesus] in his flesh. Hence Phil: • , 13: he stiles his fetters, his bonds in Christ, [not Jesus] and v: 20, 21, Christ shall be magnified in my body, that is, in my corporal sufferings for him; For to me to live is Christ, [not Jesus.] Yea hence both Paul and Peter (as if they had purposely written to resolve this point) inform us: Phil: • , 29: That it is given to us in the behalf of Christ [not Jesus] not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake. And 1 Pet: 4, 13, 14, 16. That if we be reproached for the name of Christ, [not Jesus] happy are w • , inasmuch as we are partakers of christs sufferings. Therefore (saith he) if any man suffer as a Christian, (derived only from the name of Christ) let him not be ashamed. The name therefore of Christ, [not Jesus] was the name in which Christ and Christians suffered most reproach, contempt, and persecution: and for this name did the Martyrs always suffer in the primitive Church; as the recited Scriptures and Ecclesiastical stories testify. Mr. Widdowes his Doctrine therefore, That Jesus was humbled and suffered more than Christ: That God only in the name of Jesus humbled himself, and suffered shame and rebuke: and that therefore in the same name Jesus he will be most of all magnified to the worlds end, more than in any other Title; because no other name of his but Jesus [no not his name Christ] did suffer shame, reproach, death and hell: And therefore for this one reason only (for he insisteth on no other but this alone) we must bow at the name of Jesus only, not of Christ: is a most false, absurd, erroneous, if not wicked doctrine; which not only divideth Christ from Jesus, and makes them different in degree and dignity; reviving the ancient Heresy of Cerinthus, who affirmed, That Christ and Jesus were two; that Christ descended into Jesus after baptism in the form of a dove; that Christ flew back again out of Jesus at the time of his passion, and that Jesus only suffered for us, not Christ, who continued spiritual and impassible. (An heresy, of which the sole bowers at the name of Jesus are far more guilty, than their oppugners are of Arianism, which some ridiculously cast upon them, though themselves be most of all guilty of it, since Arius denied not the eternal Deity of our Savior, &c. under his name Jesus which he seldom or never mentioned; but under his name, Son of God, Word, Wisdom, Christ, and the like; at which names our opposites teach, men must not bow at all; and so are Arians by their own confession, if the not bowing at our Savior's names may make men Arians; a conceit not heard of till of late.) But likewise contradicts the whole New Testament and the forequoted scriptures. For confutation of which I need use no other texts, than Gal: 3. 13. Christ [not Jesus, as Mr. Widdowes misrecites it] hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us. 2 Cor. 13. 3. 4. Christ [not Jesus, as he] was crucified through weakness, &c. The texts on which he grounds this Error; And this very text of Philippians 2. which as it begins, continues and ends with the name of Christ [not Jesus] See v. 1. 16. & 30. So it joins Christ and Jesus together in the very depth of humiliation: v. 5. &c. Let the same mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, &c. and in the height of exaltation: v. 11. That every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Christ Jesus, both named and conjoined in the clause of debasement: Jesus Christ is Lord; both mentioned and united in the clause of advancement in this very original text, on which all the controversy is founded. Whence the Contents of this chapter in our authorized English Bibles, run thus: He exhorteth them to unity and all humbleness of mind by the example of Christ's [not Jesus] humility and exaltation. All which doth give a fatal overthrow to this brainsick dream; That Jesus was more humbled, and so more honored than Christ: and puts a period to the present controversy, which hath no other pillar to support it but this notorious error; and that other coupled with it, page 37. to wit, That Jesus is the greatest name of God, proposed to us to worship, &c. because it was humbled most, and therefore most advanced above all other names, yea above the name of God, or Christ. The falseness of which position that you may more evidently discern, I shall here propound some unanswerable Arguments, to prove; That the name of Jesus is not more honorable, more worthy cap and knee; yea not so eminent, so glorious, and so not so venerable among Christians, as the name of Christ.
First, the name Jesus is only a proper personal [ 1] name, imposed on our Savior, to distinguish him from other men: whereas the name Christ, is a name of office, including all his several offices of King, Priest and Prophet, to which he was anointed: As therefore the names of Emperor, King, Prince, Earl, Lord-Keeper, &c. are far more honorable than the names of Henry, Charles, John, Thomas, &c. which are common to the meanest subjects; because the first are titles of honor and office; the other only ordinary proper names imposed for distinction sake. Even so must the name of Christ, a name of office, of unction, be far more honorable than Jesus; a name though originally derived from the office of a Savior, yet imposed on him at his nativity as a proper name, to difference him from other men. [ 2]
Secondly, That name which is peculiar to our Savior as a Savior, is more honorable than that which is common to him with other men. But the name Christ, is a name peculiar to our Savior as a Savior: none ever being styled Christ in Scripture, but he alone. Whereas the name Jesus wa • common unto others, viz. To Jesus the son of Nun, Hebr, 4, 8. To Jesus surnamed Iustus, Col. 4, 11. To Jesus the son of Iosedech, Hag. 1. 1. Ezra 3. 2. To Jesus the son of Sirach, The Prologue and Title to Ecclesiasticus. and to others. Therefore it is more honorable than Jesus.
[ 3] Thirdly, that name which was given to Christ in regard of his incarnation and humanity only, is not so excellent, so venerable, as that which is attributed to him in respect of both his natures. But the name, Jesus, was given to our Savior in regard of his incarnation and humanity only: Mat: 1. 21. 25. Luke 1, 31. c: 2, 21. Whereas his name Christ, was given him in respect of both his natures: Acts 10, 38. Hebr: 1, 8, 9. See here page 21, 22. & Vrsini Catech: pars 2, Quest: 31, p: 204. Ergo, it is not so excellent, so venerable as his name Christ.
[ 4] Fourthly, That name, which doth difference our Savior from all others who were called Jesus, and give him an excellency, a precedency above them all, must needs be more venerable and excellent than the name Jesus only, which doth not simply of it self either distinguish or advance our Savior above all others of that name. But this name Christ doth distinguish our Savior from all others who were styled Jesus, and gives him an excellency, a precedency above them all. Witness, Mat. 1. 16. Of whom was borne Jesus which is called Christ. Luke 2, 11. Unto you is borne a Jesus, or Savior, which is Christ the Lord. Matth: 27, 17. Jesus which is called Christ. Acts 2, 36. Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus whom you have crucified both Lord and Christ. Acts 17, 3: & 18, 5, 28: Paul preached and testified both to the Jews and Gentiles, and convinced them mightily, that Jesus was the Christ. 1 John 2, 22 Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? 1 John 5, 1: Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is borne of God. John 20, 31, These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus in the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name. All which do likewise imply, that Christ, is a title of office, more honorable by far than the bare name of Jesus: Ergo, it must needs be more venerable and excellent than the name Jesus is.
Fifthly, That name by which our Savior was most of [ 5] all confessed, acknowledged, and inquired after, and by which his kingdom and power are most set forth in Scripture, is his most honorable name. But our Savior was most of all confessed, acknowledged, inquired after, and his kingdom and power most of all set forth in Scripture by his name Christ, not Jesus. Hence the Magi, Mat: 2, 4, inquire where Christ [not Jesus] should be borne. Hence John the Baptist, when the people inquired who he was, confessed, that he was not the Christ, [not Jesus.] John 1, 20, & 2, 28: Hence the people confess, that our Savior was the very Christ, &c. John 7, 26, 27, 31, 41. Hence the woman of Samaria demanded, Is not this the Christ? and the Samaritans themselves replied, Now we believe and know, that this is indeed the Christ, [not the Jesus] the Savior of the world. John 4, 25, 29, 42: Hence the Priest and Pharisees demanded of him, whether he were the Christ or not. Mat: 26: 63: Luke 22, 67: Hence the Devils themselves cried out, and said, Thou art Christ the Son of God, for they knew that he was Christ. Luke 4, 41: Hence the Angels tell the Shepherds, that there was borne to them a Savior, which was Christ [not Jesus] the Lord. Luke 2, 11: & the Apostles being demanded of our Savior, who he was; make this reply by Peter in all their names, Thou art Christ, [not Jesus] the Son of the living God: Thou art the Christ of God. Mat: 16, 16: Luke 9, 20: John 6, 69: Hence Acts 2, 36, he is said to be made both Lord and Christ: and Acts 4, 26: The Kings of the earth stand up, and the Rulers are gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ, not Jesus. Hence, Rev: 11, 15. There were great voices in heaven, saying, The Kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdoms of the Lord, and of his Christ [not Jesus] And Revel; 12, 10: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the Kingdom of God, and the power of his Christ, &c. Rev: 20, 4, 6. And I saw a throne, &c. and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years: They shall be Priests of God, and of Christ, and shall reagne with him a thousand years. Hence S. Paul proclaimeth; That he was, not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: That he desired to know nothing but Christ crucified: That he preached to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ: That he accounted all things loss and dung, that he might win Christ: That he desired to be dissolved, and to be with Christ, which was best of all. All which with infinite other texts of Scripture, (together with all the Fathers, and our own Articles, who more commonly style our Savior in all their Writings Christ than Jesus) sufficiently confirm my Minor, and so by consequence the conclusion too.
[ 6] Sixthly, That name of our Savior which denominates his Gospel, his Sacraments, his Church, his Apostles, his Ministers, his Saints, his Kingdom; must needs be more venerable and glorious unto Christians, than that name which denominates none of these. But the name of Christ not Jesus denominates all these. First, it denominates his Gospel, which is styled the word, and Gospel of [ 1] Christ, the unsearchable riches of Christ, the sweet savor of Christ, yea Christ himself, [not Jesus:] Rom: 1, 16. • : 15, 19 20 29. 1 Cor: 9, 12, 18. 2 Cor: 2, 12. c: 4, 14. Gal: 1, 7, 15, 16, 18, Phil: 1, 27. 1 Thes: 3, 2 • 2. Thes: 1, 8. Eph: 3, 4, [ 2] 6, 8. c: 4, 20. Acts 24, 24. 1 Cor: 1, 23. 2 John 9. Secondly, it denominates his Sacraments, which are styled the Baptism of Christ, and the communion of the body and blood of Christ, [not Jesus.] Thirdly, it denominates his Church, which is styled, the Church, and Churches of [ 3] Christ, Rom: 16, 16. not of Jesus. The body, flesh wife, and members of Christ, 1 Cor: 12, 7. Ephes: 4, 12, 13, 15. c: 5, 23, to 33. Col: 1, 24. not of Jesus: Yea Christ himself 1 Cor: 12, 22. As the body is one, &c. so also is Christ, not Jesus. [ 4] Fourthly, it denominates his Apostles and Ministers, which are styled, the Apostles, Ministers, servants, and Ambassadors of Christ, not Jesus: Instructers in Christ; a sweet savor of Christ; and the glory of Christ, not of Jesus. Fifthly, it denominates his Saints, who are styled, Christians, [not Jesuits] Acts 11, 26: c: 26, 28. 1 Pet: 4, 16: The members of Christ, Eph: 5, 30, 31; 32: 1 Cor. 6, 15. not of Jesus. The Epistle of Christ, 2 Cor: 3, 3: not of Jesus: Heirs annexed with Christ, and heirs of God through Christ, [not Jesus.] Rom: 8, 17. Gal: 4, 7. Babes in Christ, 1 Cor: 3, 1: & Servants [ 5] of Christ, Gal: 1, 1 • . c: 6, 6. Ephes: 6, 5, 6. Hence Christians are said, to be in Christ and Christ in them, Gal: 2, 20. Ephes: 3, 17. 2 Cor: 5, 17. To have Christ formed in them, Gal: 4, 19. To be baptized into Christ, and to put on Christ, Gal: 1, 21. c: 3, 37. Rom: 16, 5, 7. To be Christ's, Gal: 3. 29. c: • , 24. 1 Cor: 3, 23. c: 11. 1. 1 Cor: 15, 23. 2 Cor: 10, 7. To be all one in Christ, Gal: 3, 28. Ephes: 1, 10. To be in obedience and subjection unto Christ, [not Jesus] Ephes: 5. 23, 24. c: 6, 5, 6. 2 Cor: 9, 13. & 10, 5, 7. as to their sovereign Lord and Master. And to be Priests of Christ, [not of Jesus] Rev: 20, 6: c. 1, 6. Sixthly, it deno •• nates [ 6] his Kingdom; which is styled, the Kingdom of Christ, Ephes: 5, 5. Rev: 11, 15. not of Jesus. Therefore it must needs be more venerable and glorious among Christians, than the name Jesus is; which gives no such denominations to them to these, as it.
Lastly, Christians have as much cause to reverence & [ 7] honor the name of Christ as Jesus. For, as the Scripture saith, That Christ died for them, loved, saved, redeemed them, and the like: So it records, That Christ gives them light, Eph: 5, 14. That Christ hath made thē free, Gal: 5, 1. That Christ doth strengthen thē to do all things Phil: 4, 13. That Christ doth forgive them, Col: 3, 13. That they serve the Lord Christ, Col: 3, 24. That Christ is their consolation, 2 Cor: 1, 5. Phil: 2, 1. That Christ is in them the hope of glory, Col: 1, 27. That Christ is their life, and that their lives are hid with Christ in God, Col: 3, 3, 4. That Christ liveth in them, and that they live by him, Gal: 2, 20: That Christ dwells in their hearts by faith, Ephes: 3, 17: That Christ is for them an high Priest of good things to come, Hebr: 9, 11: That God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, 2 Cor: 5, 19: That Christ loveth them; that this love of Christ to them surpasseth knowledge; and that nothing shall be ever able to sever them from Christ's love, which constraineth them to live unto him, Ephes: 5, 25 2 Cor: 5, 14: Eph: 3, 13: Rom: 8, 35. That Christ is all and in all, yea all unto them: Col: 3, 11: Eph: 1, 20, 23. Which considerations made Paul to prize Christ so much; as to count all things loss and dung to win Christ; and to desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, which was best of all. Therefore certainly, Christ, and his name Christ, (which name the Emperor Constantine, with other Christian Emperors, and their Christian soldiers did so much honor, as to engrave and wear it both in their helmets and their ensigns: whereas we never read that they gave such honor to this name Jesus:) are as honorable, as great, as worthy reverence, capping, and bowing, as Jesus, or his name Jesus, which comes short of his name Christ, in all these respects. And let this forever silence the s ••• stitious bowers at the name of Jesus, who engross all reverence and honor to the name of Jesus alone, preferring it above all other Titles of our Savior; yea before his style of Christ, of Savior, which is the same with Jesus, and doth more really and fully express his office of a Savior, (it being the very title of that office in the Scripture) than his name Jesus doth.
[ 14] But to return again to your Sons absurdities: Page 34, he affirms, That Angels and Saints in heaven do bow at the name of Jesus. A confident assertion of a Metaphysical Divine; who in my hearing preached twice or thrice so learnedly of Angels, (the chief subject of his elevated metaphysical contemplations) in St. Mary's in Oxford, that he preached most of his Auditors out of the Church. But admit Mr. Widdowes out of his intimate • acquaintance with the Angels knows this for certain, (which neither he, nor any other man can ever prove) that Angels and Saints in heaven do bow their knees at every naming of Jesus: yet how can he prove his second position, page 34, That Devils and Reprobates bow at this name, as stubborn prisoners. I hope he was never as yet the Devils Chaplain, (though he hath oft disputed and combated with him in his study hand to hand; ) that he so knowingly, so confidently avers, that Devils and Reprobates bow at the name of Jesus in hell: Which bowing as himself records, being a duty of the Text in time of divine service only, disproves this idle dream of his. For, whoever heard? whoever read divine service in hell as Chaplain to the Devil? If then there be no divine service heard or read in hell, (as I believe there will be none till Mr. Widdowes chaunts it) then questionless there is no bowing at the name of Jesus there, a duty, a ceremony in time of divine service only, as this Author writes: who can never prove, that Devils bow at the name of Jesus in hell, but by some special revelation frō the Devil, or those spirit raised up from thence, which long since frayed him out of his little wits.
To pass by his gross falsification of Origen on Rom: [ 15] 14: whom he brings in, writing, page 54, that we must bow at the name of Jesus, because he is humble: when as Bishop Andrew's and himself confess, in the very self-same page; and page 21, 90: that Origen of all the other Fathers is against them: together with his corrupting of Chrysostom, page 62, line 16, 17, 18: and of Athanasius, and the Council of Ephesus, page 76, 77, in the very self-same manner; when as neither of them writes one word of bowing at the name of Jesus in the alleged places, as the perusal of them in their works, and the Survey of the Council of Ephesus, (which anathematizeth those only, which did co • door the humanity of our Savior with his Deity, and not rather Emmanuel, God and man, with one adoration: there being neither the name Jesus, nor one word of bowing (much less of bowing at the name of Jesus) in the 8. Canon of that Council, which he voucheth) will fully evide • ce. Nor yet to remem • er his strange Divinity, page 40, That Jesus his name was given him twice; once till death, afterwards forever: and that the Disciples for saking, and Peters denying of Christ, was a death of his name Jesus. Or page 59, l: 10, 11, 12: That we must bow at the name of Jesus more then is required by Phil: 2: Isaiah 45: or Rom: 14: (the chief texts on which this duty is (though absurdly) grounded:) which to recite alone is to confute. I shall request you to take notice of 21 Scriptures, which he hath mangled, falsified, and grossly misapplied; that so I may meet with him for his notorious slander; That I have falsified 15, nay 36 Texts of Scripture, and above 80 Authors; which he only writes, but prove; not in any one particular. Page 9, l: 27: he misrecites the 1 Cor: 16, 22; omitting the name Christ, to add more reverence to the name Jesus. Page 16, l: 12, 13: he writes; That bowing at the name of Jesus is a duty required at Psal: 95, 6; O come let us worship and bow down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker. As if the name Jesus (which was given to our Savior many hundred years after the penning of this Psalm) were our Lord and Maker intended in this verse. Page 27 l: 17, 18, he brings in the 24 Elders Rev: 5, 12, 13, bowing at the name of Jesus in time of this life: when as the text records only, that they worshipped the Lamb, &c. not Jesus, or his name: and that in heaven not on earth, for ought that there appears to contradict it. Page 31, l. 18. he argues thus from Acts 3, 15. Ye killed the Prince of life; Ergo, no name was ever so abused as the name of Jesus; and therefore we must bow at it more than at any other name. Page 37, l: 34, 35, he falsifieth Gal: 3, 13: & 1 Cor: 13, 4; foysting in Jesus into them, instead of Christ, when as the name Jesus is not mentioned in these texts, but Christ alone. Page 38, l: 18; he concludes out of Acts 4, 12, That Jesus is the only name by which we are saved: as if the bare name of Jesus only (not the person, power, or merits of Jesus, the only name intended in this verse, as all Expositors on it accord;) were our only Savior: Yet the name Jesus is not mentioned in this verse; and verse 10, doth join the name of Christ and Jesus together; [ Jesus Christ of Nazareth, &c ] adding no more virtue to the one than to the other. Page 38, l. 31, 32; he falsifieth the 2 Cor: 5, 19: God was in Jesus reconciling the world to himself: whereas the text is, God was in Christ, not Jesus. Page 48, he misrecites 6 Scriptures together: viz. Eph: 1, 10, 19, 20, 21; where he reads Jesus, for Christ; the text being Christ, not Jesus: Matth: 7, 23, 24, where the text is Lord, not Jesus: the 1 Cor: 15, 25, where the name Jesus is not once mentioned, but Christ alone, from verse 12, to 26: yet he reads it Jesus, &c. not Christ: Eph: 4, 7, 8, & Col: 2, 15; where he forgeth in Jesus for Christ: And all to prove Jesus, qua Jesus, a confirming Jesus to Angels, a commanding Jesus to Devils, and an exalted and triumphing Jesus over Devils, out of these texts: which no ways warrant his collection; and style him only by the name of Christ, or Lord, not Jesus; and so make quite against him. Page 55, l. 10, he applies Rev: 21, 24, to Jesus, which the text, with all Interpreters expressly apply, to the City, the Church, and new Jerusalem, in the precedent verses, and can be applied to no other. Page 55, l: 21, he again corrupts, Ephes: 1, 20, 21, exchanging Jesus for Christ: and page 73, he perverts no less than 7 several texts together, as grossly, as Papistically as Durand, or any other Papist ever did; Which Scriptures I shall here pass over, because I have touched them before. These several Scriptures, with sundry others, hath this monstrously learned Divine corrupted, falsified, and willfully perverted, to draw on capping & bowing at the name of Jesus; a duty which the primitive Church, and Fathers never heard of; and which most Protestant Churches quite disclaim: and so are Arians, Puritans, Schismatics Nonconformists, Disputers against the holy Ghost, yea rebels, traitors, enemies to Jesus, and to our Sovereign his Vice-gerent, and I know not what besides, if Mr. Widdowes Divinity, or * Confutation may be credited; which makes bowing at the names of Jesus, (not the adoration of our Savior Jesus, God and man, to whom we yield all the divine honor and worship that himself requires, as our prayers to him, our whole dependence on him, our public and private worship of him, &c. testify, though we bow not superstitiously at his name;) a moral command, a necessary, an universal Ceremony which God requires in all Churches, not only for a day or a year, but forever, &c. Page 74. though few but Papists and Popish Churches ever practiced it, and these but lately, as I shall prove anon.
[ 16] This Son of yours, is not only thus absurd, but Popish too. To omit his ridiculous Popish trash, p: 71, 72, 73: Page 34, he hath this Romish passage; The Church is the place of God's presence, &c. where his Priests sacrifice their own, and the militant Churches prayers, and the Lord's Supper, to reconcile us to God offended with our daily sins: • rgo the Priests of the Church of England, (especially those who erect adore, and cringe to Altars) are sacrificing Priests; and the Lord's Supper is a propitiatory sacrifice, sacrificed by these Priests for men's daily sins. And is this your Doctrine, or our Churches, Mother?
[ 17] Page 36, to 42, he often harps on this Popish string; That Christ Jesus by his sufferings did merit something to himself; and among other things, this in special; the exaltation, adoration, of and bowing unto his name Jesus. A Doctrine which Calvin, Marlorat, Dr. Fulke, Mr. Cartwright, and generally all Protestant Divines on Phil: 2, 9, 10, do utterly condemn as Popish, as derogatory to the greatness & freeness of Christ's love to his: Yea a Doctrine which this forgetful Angelical Dr. (who oft confutes himself) doth fully contradict, p. 37, 38; where he writes • That God rewarded Jesus freely; that his name Jesus was • free gift, and freely given to him, &c. therefore not •••• ted by him.
Page 89, he writes; That there is good reason why we should bow at or towards the Communion-table, though there be neither Scripture nor Canon that binds us thus to bow: because the Communion-table is the Chair of state of the Lord Jesus, and his chiefest place of presence in our Church: because we may bow at his Majesty's chair of estate, who is but Jesus his Deputy: and because the Communion-table is the sign of the place where our Savior was most despised, dishonored and crucified.
It is strange, that he who could avouch express Scripture, for ringing of bells, procession, the 4 cornered cap, the penitential sheet, &c. page 72, 73; should find neither Scripture nor Canon for bowing to, or at Communion-tables and Altars: but stranger, that he should justify this bowing; there being neither Scripture nor Canon for it; when as there is both Scripture, Statute, and Canon to, against it. The Scriptures, we know, do positively condemn as gross idolatry, the bowing at, to or before any Images, Pictures, Idols, and Altars, Levite: 26, 1. Exod: 20, 5. c: 23, 24. Deut: 5. 7, 82 Kings 17, 35. Numb: 25, 2. Josh: 23, 16. Isaiah 2, 8, 9. 1 Kings 19, 18. 2 Chron: 25, 14. Yea our own Homilies, Statutes, Canons, and Writers, as they expressly inhibit the setting up of any Images, Pictures, Crucifixes, or Altars in Churches, (a thing now much in use:) so they instruct us likewise, That the bowing or kneeling before an image, crucifix, picture, or Altar, & the very bowing to them, is Idolatry: And why then should not the bowing at, to, or before the Communion-table (which is nowhere commanded by the Scripture) be Idolatry too? Francis de Croy in his first Conformity, cap. 24, with others testify. The Paganizing Popish Priests have borrowed this bowing to Altars, from the Pagans; a practice much in use among them: witness their spurious D. Iacobi Divina Missa, Bibl. Patrum Tom. 1. p, 15. F. 19. D. their forged Dionysius Areopagita, De Ecclesiast. Hierarch. lib: c: 5. lbid: p: 132, C, H, 13 • , A. their Rusticus Diaconus Cardinalis, contra Achephalos Disputatio. Bib. Patr. Tom: 6, pars 2, p: 125, G: 229, E: their Stephanus Eduensis Episc: De Sacramento Altaris, cap: 12, Bib: Pat: Tom: 10, p: 416, C. Honorius Augustodunensis De Antiquo ritu Missae, l: 2, c: 30, Bib. Patr. Tom. 12, pars 1, p: 1054: Radulphus Tungrensis de Canonum Observantia, Propositio 23, Bib: Pat: T: 14, pag: 250, B. Eugenius Roblesius De Authoritate et Ordine Officij Mazabarici, lib: cap: 27, 28. Bib: Patr: Tom: 15, p. 781, G, H. Alexius Menesius Missa Christianorum apud Indos, Ibid: p: 793, 795, 796, their idolatrous Mass-books, Durand, with other Authors, and common experience; all which sufficiently testify the Papists daily practice of bowing unto Altars. From which, some superstitious Romanizing Protestants, without either Scripture or Canon to authorize them, have of late begun to bow and cringe to Communion-tables, (or in truth to new erected high Altars, as they style them:) which how it differs from Papists Altar-adorations, or from their bowing and cringing to Pictures and Crucifixes, or how it can be excused from superstition, will-worship, & idolatry, I cannot yet conjecture. Bowing before the Altar, or Communion Table, if the Papists, or Mr. Cozens may be credited, is no less than adoration; and I presume Mr Widdowes (who makes bowing at the name of Jesus, a part of divine worship) intends it to be no less. Being therefore not commanded in Scripture, it must needs be Idolatry, or will-worship at the least, and so to be abhorred notwithstanding the three Popish (if not foolish) reasons produced for to justify it; which I shall now examine, For the first of them: That the Communion-table is the Lord Jesus his chair of Estate, &c. therefore we may (we must) lawfully bow unto it: it is an absurd argument. Our Lord Jesus his chair of estate is only at his Fathers own right hand, were he now sits and raig • es in glory: Heaven is his throne, earth but his footstool. If he hath any throne or chair of estate on earth, it is in the hearts and souls of his elect. in which he dwells, and reigns. He is on the Communion table, (and that only when the consecrated bread and wine at the Sacrament, are upon it, not at other times) not as a King in a royal throne, but as a crucified Savior, a spiritual repast, which our souls by faith must feed on: and even then, he is not so much preser • at or on the Communion-table, as in the Ministers, the receivers hand and heart; as in the bread and wine, the Chalice, and Cup, which no men bow to. This first reason therefore is both ridiculous and erroneous, The second, The men may bow to the Kings chair of Estate, &c. as it is a mere Popish cavil, which Protestants oft have answered; so it is impertinent to the present purpose, because the Kings chair of estate, and so the bowing to it, is but a civil thing; whereas the Communion-table (made of wood, (not stone) is a religious implement of God's own appointment, standing anciently, as now it ought, in the very midst, not at the east end of the Church: and so the genuflection, or inclining of the body, to it, or before it, is a religious external worship at the least; which being not commanded by divine authority, is no less than superstition or idolatry. The last reason, as it make more for bowing to crucifixes, to Golgatha, to the high Priests hal, thā to Cōmuniō tables or Altars, so it is a mere ridiculous absurdity For the Communion table is not a sign of the high Priests palace, nor yet of Golgatha, nor of the Cross, therefore it's no sign of the place where our Savior was most dishonored, despised, and crucified: If it be any sign at all, it is only a sign of a spiritual repasting place, or of an heavenly banquet, where in Christ doth spiritually distribute his body & blood, with all the benefits of his passion, to all who worthily receive them. But that it should be a sign of the place where our Savior suffered, is as new Divinity unto me, as is the very bowing to Communion-tables, which hath neither Scripture, Law, nor Canon for to warrant it.
[ 19] Page 21, 22, 23; He writes thus: That all the Fathers and Ancients on this place, but Origen, do literally understand this text of Phil. 2. 9, 10, and approve of this actual bowing at the name of Jesus, which we now dispute of; That this bowing was the custom of St. Jerome's time: & that it was a most ancient custom, even in the beginning of the Church: for proof of which he hath vouched Bp. Andrew's, Bp. Whitguist, Zanchius, the Councils of Nice and Ephesus, Athanasius, Cyril and Jerome. But than Gregory the 10 who lived in the year of our Lord 1273, was one of the first Fathers of it, this (writes he) is fabulous, and a part of the Puritans Legend.
This passage I dare boldly aver, is as fabulous as any in the golden Legend, there being not one Father, one ancient Expositor this day extant, that did ever interpret this text, of any corporal genuflection or bowing at the recital of the name of Jesus, in time of divine service only, (to which Jews, Turks, and Arians seldom come, and so it's needless in respect of them) or at other seasons. I have already in my Appendix truly vouched some 80, or more several ancient and moderne Authors, who reciting, and descanting on this Text, have found out no such Duty, or Ceremony, of bowing at the naming of Jesus in time of divine service, as this upstart Chymicke hath extracted (I should say wrested) from it, even by head and shoulders, against the very words and meaning, as I have there largely proved. To these I shall accumulate some other ancient and modern Writers, who give no other interpretation of the name above every name, and of the bowing of every knee of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, in the name of Jesus, in this text of the Philippians, than that I have mentioned in my Appendix: Which Writers because they are many, I shall therefore only quote their names and books, (which the learned Reader may peruse at leisure) not their words: Their names and works in brief are these: Sancti Hippoliti Oratio De Consum. Mundi, & de Antichristo, Bibl: Patrum Coloniae Agrip: 1618. Tom: 3. p. 17. B. Dionuysij Alexandrini Epistolacontra Paulū Samo satensem, ibid: p: 75. B. C, D Zeno Veronensis Sermo in Psa: 126, ibid: p: 97, G, S. Antonij Abbatis Epist: 6. Bibl: Patrum Tom: 4, p: 30; B. Phaebadi Episc: contra Arrianos lib: ibid: p: 230; G. Idacij. adverse: Varimadum lib: ibid: p: 622; A; Caesarij Dialogus 1; ibid: p: 650. A. S. Marci Eremita Praecepta salutaria, ibid: p: 959; B, C, D. Prosper Aquit: De Praedictionibus Dei pars 1; c: 25; pars 2; c: 24. Expositio in Psal: 102; fol: 236; A. in Psal: 109, fol: 254; A. 255; B; in Psal: 137; f. 296. Paulinus Epist; 9; ad Severum. Bibl: Patr: Tom: pars 1. p: 163 G. Ad Aprum: Epist: 1, p: 187; B, & Ad Augustinum Epist: 3, p: 216, C. where he applies this text. to the name of Christ, not of Jesus. S. Procli Sermo in Transfig. Christi, ibid: p 535; D, E: 536; C. Eusebij Gallicani Homil: 1; De Nativ. Domini, Ibid: p: 544; C; D. Eucherius Lugdunensis Epist: Paraenetica ad Valerium; ibid: p: 777: D. & Commentarij in Genefim l: 3. ibid. p: 832. A. p: 836. G. Gregentius Archiepisc. Tephrensis, Disputatio cum Herbano Iudaeo, ibid p: 924. C. a pregnant place for my Exposition. Claudius Mamerchus Destatu Animae, lib: 1. ibid. p. 951. F; G. Cassianus De Incarnatione Vnigeniti, lib: 4 Bibl Patr: Tom. 5, pars 2; p. 71. F, G. Isiodori Pelusiotae Epist: l: 1. Ep. 139. ibid. p. 491; D; E. Arnobij & Serapionis Conflictus, Bibl. Pat. Tom: 5, pars 3, p: 218, C. Arnobij Comment: in Psal: 7, Ibid: p: 234, C. in Psal: 64, p: 262, A. in Psal: 88, p: 277, B. in Psal: 137, p: 308, E, F. Ruricij Epist: l: 2. Epist: 10, Ibid: p: 544, 545. Theodulus Caelesyriensis Comment: in Epist: ad Romanos, c: 14. p: 590, B, C, D. Vigily Episc: Tridentini, Disputatio de Christo, D, N, &c. Ibid: p: 693, D, E. 703, A. & adversus Eutichen l: 5, Apud Georgij Cassandri Opera, Parisijs 1616, p: 561. Ferrandus Diaconus ad Reginum Paraeneticus: Quarta innocentiae Regula, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 6, pars 1, p: 349, F, G. Iusti Orgelitani Episc: in Cantica Cantic: Explicatio, Ibid: p: 512, F: Isychius in Levite: l: 7, c: 24. Bibl: Patrum Tom: 7, p: 108, B. Etherij & Beati lib: 1, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 8, p: 342, C, D, E. 346, E, F. Amalarius Fortunatus, De Ecclesiasticis Officijs lib:1, c: 11. Bibl. Patrum Tom: 9, pars 1, p: 308, F, G. Agobardi Episc: Lugdun: ad Ludovicum Imperator •• , Ibid: p: 556, G, H. De Picturis et Imaginibus lib: Ibid: p: 598, C, D. & Sermo De Trinitate, p: 610, G, H. 611, A, B. Angelomi Stromata in lib: 1, Regum, cap: 2, Ibid; p: 708, C, D: 700, F, G. In lib: Regum 2, cap • 2, p: 730, C: cap: 12, p: 740, E. In lib: Regum 3: c: 8, p: 771 D. Jesse Ambianensis Episc: Epist: Bib: Patrum Tom: 9, pars 2, p: 251, D. Ambrosius Ansbertus in Apocalypse: l: 3, Ibid: p: 378, E, F. HRabanus Maurus, Comment: in Pauli Epistolas lib: 19, c: 2. Operum Coloniae Agrip: 1626, Tom: 5, p: 460, D, E. & l: 6, p: 449, E. Paschatius Ratbertus in Matthaei Evang: l: 10, Ibid: p: 1156, B, C. Lib: 11, p: 1177, A, B. lib: 12, p: 1234, G, H. Expositio in Psal: 44, p: 1246, G. 1249, G. Remigij Altisiodorensis Episcopy in Psal: 15, Enarrat, Ibid: p, 654, B: in Psal: 148, p: 869, B. Ioannis Cyparissioti Decad; 4, c: 10, De Informatione Divini Nominis, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 11, p: 499, B. Simeonis Thessal: Archiepij copide Divino Templo, Bibl: Patrum Tom: 12, pars 1, p: 880, C; Zacharias Chrysopolitanus, in Vnum ex 4 or. lib: ibid: p: 185, F; Petrus Cluniacensis contra Iudaeos, Tract: cap: 1, Bib: Patrum Tom: 12, pars 2, p: 156, D, cap: 3, p: 171, F, G; cap: 4, p: 182, F; Contra Petrobusianos ibid: p: 225, C, D; De Transfig: Domini Sermo, ibid: p: 2 • 4, D; Petrus Blesensis Bathoniensis Archidiaconus, Sermo 31, ibid: p: 886, D; Sermo 46, p: 907, H. De Transfig: Domini, p 915, B; Ioannis Salisburiensis, in Phil: 2, 9, 10; MS; in Bibliotheca Bodleiana: Lucas Tudensis adversus. Albigensium Errores, l: 2, cap: 10; Bibl: Patrum Tom: 13, p: 261, F; c: 16, p: 267, 268; Guilbertus De Tornaco De Officio Episcopy, et Ecclesiae Ceremonijs lib: cap: 13; ibid: p: 398. D. Nicolai Cabasilae, De vitain Christo lib: 6, Bib: Patrum Tom: 14, p: 127, A; Papa Innocentius 3. Sermo 1, in Dominica. 2, post Pascha; Operum, Tom: 1, p: 43, In Circumcisione Domini Sermo 1, Pag: 95, In festo omnium Sanctorum Sermo 1, p: 156, Mysteriorum Missae lib: 2, c: 44, p • 329, & De contemptu mundi; l. 2, c: 15, p 449, Thomas Waldensis Tom: 3, Tit: 5, De Baptismi Sacr: cap: 54, fol: 103, num: 6, Petr: Lombard. Sententiarum, l: 3, Distinctio 18. See Gorrichen, and the other Schoolmen Ibidem: to which I shall add Ioannis Brenz, Zwingli, Selneccerus, & Piscator in Phil. 2, 9, 10 Jacobus Naclantus Enarratio in Epist ad Romanos, cap. 14 Venetijs 1557 fol. 159; Pareus Comment: inc. 14, ad Romanos, v. 11, Col. 1475, 1476, 1477; Ioannis Lukawits, Waldensis, Conjessio Taboritarum, in Balthazaris Lydij Waldensia pars 1, p. 161, 162, 163; Polanus Syntagma Theology, Genevae 1616 l. 2, c. 5, p. 211; Zachariae Vrsini Catechet, Explic. 1617, pars 2, Qu. 50, fol. 305 Henricus Bullingerus Assert • o Orthodoxa utriusque naturae Christi, Tiguri 1534, fol, 35, 36; Josiah Simlerus, De Filio Dei, lib 2, Tiguri 1568, fol. 79, & 134; Dr. Field Of the Church, Book 5, chapter 20; Sixti Senensis Bibliothecae sanctae, lib. 5, Annotatio 150. These 60 ancient Fathers, and moderne Authors, (to whom I could have added sundry others, did not the desire of brevity and my Tearme-occasions stint me,) together with those 80, already recited in my Appendix, in their quotations and expositions of Phil: 3 • 9, 10. That in the name of Jesus, That is, in the sovereign Authority of Jesus: (Which phrase, in the name of Jesus, is answerable to the usual clause in our ordinary Proclamations, Commissions, Warrants: These are to will, require, charge, command you in, not at, his Majesty's name; or in, not at, the Kings name; a speech most frequent in all Officers mouths of all sorts: that is, in the virtue of his Majesty's royal authority, to do this or thus) every knee should bow, &c. have made no such liter all exposition of this text, neither have they hence collected any such duty of bowing at the name of Jesus in time of Divine service, as Mr. Widdowes hath squeized from it: most of them interpreting the name above every name, intended in this text; to be, either the name God, Jehovah, Lord, Son of God, Christ; &c. or at leastwise the Majesty, Glory, Honor, Authourity, Power, Sovereignty, Fame, and Monarchy of Christ, as himself confesseth, page 66, 67. All of them concluding, the bowing of every knee, &c. in this text, to be, the subjection of all things unto Christ, as to their sovereign Lord, their King and Judge; and that especially at the day of judgment, (when this Scripture shall be only actually and fully verified;) or the adoration of Christ in prayer, as God equal with his Father: Not one of them interpreting it, of any bowing, or cringing at the naming of Jesus; a Ceremony, a duty of this text, not heard of in the primitive Church, not known to the Fathers, or any ancient Expositors of this text; in whom I dare confidently affirm, and let any, nay all the bowers at the name of Jesus disprove me if they can, there is no mention of this duty, this ceremony: which our Church cannot approve of without degenerating from all antiquity, from all reformed Churches, which I dare presume she will not do. Indeed Bp. Andrew's, and Mr. Widdowes have quoted Fathers for it, but how impertinently, I have already demonstrated: and if the Reader will but examine them, he shall find them either altogether extravagant, or point-blank against them. All the Antiquity that seems to give any color to this bowing, is the fabulous story of Ignatius the Martyr, in whose heart ( as some Popish Authors have recorded,) the name of Jesus, or rather, Jesus est amor meus, was found written in golden Characters. But these golden Letters, are but a part of the golden Legend; for neither Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozemon, Nicephorus; nor any other ancient Ecclesiastical writers, who make mention of Ignatius his Martyrdom, have recorded any such thing: and besides Eusebius writes, That he was torn in pieces of the Lions, to whom he was cast. Neither do the Popish relaters of it agree in one: some recording, that the name Jesus only was written in his heart: others, that Jesus Christus, was written throughout his heart: others, that Jesus est amor meus, was there inscribed. But admit this Legend (which some Protestants now vouch with too much credulity) were true; yet the relaters of it (and of some others of this nature, viz. B. Virginis Clarae de Monte falernis, and of a noble Soldier) record not, that Ignatius did use to bow at the name of Jesus, but that he had it always in his mouth, whence it was afterwards thus engraven in golden Letters in his heart, not in his knees, in which it had been undoubtedly written, had he used to bow and cringe unto it. This fable therefore of Ignatius his heart, (not knees) makes nothing for this new-coin'd duty, this di • orderly ceremony of bowing the knee at every naming of Jesus, (which must needs disturb men in their devotions, since this name Jesus, is oft times mentioned twice, and sometime thrice together in one verse; ) for which there is no ground, no warrant in the Fathers, in Antiquity, as this fabulous scribler hath recorded; who should have forborne to have taxed me, for falsifying, for misvouching those 80 Fathers, and Authors, quoted in my Appendix; since there is not one of them, (let the Committ • es employed to examine them, be the umpires) but concludes pointblanke against him in the Interpretation of the name, or bowing in this text; of which not one of them, (no not Zanchi • s, nor Dr. Boys, as he suggestes, who both interpret it as I have done,) did ever make, this bowing at the name of Jesus, a duty; as this brainsicke nonsense Noveller doth Which bowing (as a ceremony only, not a duty,) was never publicly enjoined unto any, till Pope Gregory the 10. his time, for ought that can be proved; and therefore to style him one of the first Fathers of it, is no Puritans Legend, as he stiles it; but an apparent truth; which all the Anti-puritan bowers at the name of Jesus put together, cannot disprove. Should I now here at large inform you, of his absurd dispute, Whether bowing at the name of Jesus be some thing? occasioned by the two first lines of my Appendix; viz. [ The bowing of the head or knee at the name of Jesus, if it be anything, &c. ] which words if anything as they neither affirm, nor yet suppose, the bowing at the name of Jesus to be a mere nothing, both in genere entis, & moris, as he vainly cavils: since my whole Appendix grants it, proves it, to be a superstitious, Popish ••••• less Ceremony; and so acknowledgeth it to 〈◊〉 something, in genere entis, at the least; a thing which no man ever questioned. So (they being a most usual form of Argument drawn from a Disjunction, which every Fresh-man knows,) imply no more but this; That bowing at the name of Jesus, is nothing; (to wit, in causa religions, in point of Religion or divine worship only, not in genere entis;) because it is neither a Ceremony, nor a duty of the Text, as I have there sufficiently proved. Which phrase of speech, to call something in genere entis, nothing; that is, in genere moris, in point of religion, or to some special purposes, to which it is unavailable, impertinent, or as much as nothing, is most frequent in the Scripture: as St. Paul's styling of an Idol, nothing in the world that is, in regard of any Deity it hath in it, or in respect of any help or good it can yield to those who worship it: and his calling of Circumcision, and uncircumcision nothing; that is, in p • int of Justification, where they are as nothing: with sundry other instances, plentifully testify, to rebuke the madness of this erroneous Prophet, who is so ignorant of his own Modalities, as thus to carpe at nothing. Or shou • d I here show you, how your Son hath contradicted himself in this very controversy; In making this bowing, a duty of the Text and yet a ceremony too A duty and a ceremony only in time of divine service, and yet a duty, which Angels and Saints 〈◊〉 heaven, and Devils and Reprobates in hell perform. A •• ty incident only to the name of Jesus, and yet enjoined by Cyril, and the Council of Ephesus, to the name of Emmanuel, as he write. In averring, That Jesus is the name above every name, &c. & that the literal bowing of the knee at the name of Jesus is the bowing intended in Phil: 2, 9 10. reciting the Authors quoted by me in my Appendix, as making for it, when as they all conclude against it, by his own confession, if you observe them well: with sundry other contradictions which I • mit. Or should I here discover his many absurd impertinent misquotations; his mis-englishing of those Latin Authors which he voucheth: and his gross perverting of Authors, and Scriptures: page 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 32, 37, 41, 42, & 59, to 68, in which there is scarce a pertinent true quotation, or right englishing of any Latin Author, if you examine them well. Or should I now inform you, how he hath misquoted Qu. Eliz. obsolete Injunctions, Injunct. 52. and the 18. Canon: In which there is no such clause: That all present at Divine service should bow at the name of Jesus: the words of the Canon being, That when in time of Divine service the Lord Jesus [which hath reference only to the person of Jesus, represented to us under any of his names] not the name of Jesus, should be mentioned, due and lowly reverence (not bowing of the head or knee, much less the putting off of the hat, which this Canon forbids men to put on in time of Divine service) shall be done by all persons present, &c. Or should I here relate unto you, that all his strong Armor, all his Arguments, page 87, 88, 89, wherein he trusts, are but a mere petitio principij; wherein he begs of me the question, as he hath run about the University like a Frier mendicant, to beg his Arguments, which are all built upon this sandy false foundation; That bowing at the naming of Jesus is a duty of the text: an honor which God hath given to Jesus, and he hath merited from us, and therefore we must yield it to him, to testify our own humility, and to declare his sovereignty, that he is Lord and Jesus: the thing which he should prove, and I, (yea all the 80 Authors which I have quoted in my Appendix, with these sixty others here recited) deny; I should but tire my own and your patience, and waste both time and paper to no purpose.
Wherefore ( Deare Mother) recommending to your gravest consideration, and then to your correction, the several gross notorious Oversights of this brave Champion -Son of yours, who like some great Goliath, to show his valor, (or his folly rather) hath sent a printed Challenge to me, (a little David in respect of him) to dispute even face to face with him in the Schools, &c. perchance because he thinks himself a better Disputant, than he is here a Writer) that so I may no longer trouble the Church; I hope, for your own honor and reputation, which now lie at stake in this your unworthy Sons absurd illiterate Confutation, you will upon the serious perusal of this my Survey, proceed to bind this his erroneous (and I trust unlicensed) Pamphlet, (which is like to bring a scandal on his Mother) to the good behavior, and his untutered, scurrilous, foolish, scribbling Goose-quill, to everlasting peace: by reducing his person, his Syllogisms to Bocardo, the only Mood, the fittest School for such a Challenger, such a Writer to dispute in, who would not conclude his notorious known Errors, in Celarent, upon my timely private Letter and advice. Thus wholly referring his Confutation, Errors, Person, to your motherly lash and Censure, (as being loath to encroach upon your Liberties, or to trouble myself with such an Adversary, who hath taken much unamiable pains to spread h • s too wellknowne folly, and mar his laud-unworthy cause, which was bad and weak enough before,) I here humbly close up all, and ever rest,
From my study at Lincolns Inn, November 15. 1630
Your dutiful Son in all filial Respects: WILLIAM PRYNNE.
Arnobius Advers. Gentes lib. 1.
CHRISTIAN Reader, I here present thee with a short historical or Chronologicall Discourse, of the true original and progress of Bowing at the name of Jesus; 1 Ceremony, (and as some write) a Duty, much pressed, practiced and abetted now of late by some, who though they style themselves Christians, not Jesuits; will yet with Jesuits, and other Papists, monopolize all worship, all bowing to the name Jesus only, and give none to Christ, from which their very ti • le of Christians is derived What these men's present violent enforcing, propugning of this upstarr Popish Ceremony by preaching, by printing: or what the suspension, silencing or censuring of such as speak, as preach against it, means, or whence it springs, I cannot well determine. If it be only a misguided superstitious zeal, arising from mere ignorance of the true original Popish rise and progress of this Ceremony; I hope the ensuing pages will both instruct them whence it sprung, & whither it tends; and so reform them. But if it be a willful obstinate symbolizing with the Church of Rome, (whose Images, Altars, Cringes, Crosses, Bowings to, and turning of Communion-tables Altar-wise, like a Kitching Dresser, not a Table at which men usually sit round; bo • h against our Statutes, Homilies, Articles, & Canons, creep in apace among us without any public censure or control:) I hope this Treatise, (which shows them whose and what they strive for, even for the very spawn, the Relics of the whore and Popes of Rome, from whom bowing at the name of Jesus had its birth, its breeding as I shall here demonstrate:) will, if not reclaim them, yet at leastwise shame them, show whose they are and what they aim at. Wherefore I here submit it to thy pious censure, requesting only thus much from thee; that as I have written it faithfully with an upright heart, void of all schism of faction to beat down superstition, Popery, and declare the truth; so thou wouldest embrace & read it with a love of truth. And if thou canst not contradict it, let Athan • sius his Maxim be now thy resolution in this case. Quod pessimo initio nititur, in nullo unquam censeri poterit bonum. And so I rest.
Thine, and the Truthes, WILLIAM PRYNNE.
A short Relation of the true beginning, and progress, of bowing at the name of Jesus; necessary for the determination of the present Controversy.
POpe John the 20, who swayed the Popedom about the year 1030: is the first I read of, that set abroach this Ceremony, of bowing at the name of Jesus: of whom Sir Edwin Sands, in his Europae Speculum, Hagae 1629 page 16. writes thus. By grant from Pope John the 20, every inclining of the head at the name of Jesus gets 20, years pardon; a matter in Italy no not this day unpractised. And to grace that Ceremony the more, I have heard sundry of their renowned Divines teach in the Pulpit: that Christ himself on the Cross bowed his head on the right side, to reverence his own name which was written over it. This is the highest pedigree of this late upstart Ceremony, that I have hither to met with.
Petrus Blesensis Arch-deacon of Bathe, who flourished about the year 1160: Sermo 28, De Assumptione B. Mariae, hath this ensuing passage. Non frustra consuevit Ecclesia intercessione beatae Virginis affectuosius caeteris implorare, ita quod audito ejus nomine genua terrae a •• igat; imopro nominis reverentia quasi mare confragosum sonant vota populorum. And in the margent there is this note. Mariae genua flectuntur. Which passages seem to imply, that men did then use to bow and do reverence at the naming of the Virgin Mary: but that they did so at the naming of Jesus, I find no such authority in this writer.
Lucas Tudensis, who wrote about the year of our Lord, 1220. Adversus Albigensium Errores, (c) lib. 2. cap. 14. writes thus. Qui humilitate superbiae principem vicit, humilitate nos contra potestates aërias semper pugnare docuit: quod ipse et fecit tempore carnis suae quando non recto capite, sed inclinato emisit spiritum. Inclinemus nos & illi capita nostra, non solum mentis, sed & corporis, laudes & gratias persolventes, qui pro nobis peccatoribus se misericorditer inclinavit. Sed sunt nonnulli qui superbiae spiritu tumefacti, (de quibus valde dolendum est) qui etiam cum Gloria, vel Laus Deo recitatur in Ecclesia, contemnunt, aut erubescunt, Regi Regum Jesus Christo capita inclinare: coram transeunte Cruce, vel Christi Euangelio non assurgunt: in celebratione Missae Sacerdote se ad eos vertente et Dominum annunciante inclinari contemnunt: ad benedictionem Pontificis caput nudare negligunt: et quod omnino nefarium est, et heresy proximum, cum elevatur corpus Christi à Sacerdote in sacratissimo Ministerio Missae, vel alias refertur, erubescunt vel refugiunt suppliciter adorare. Hoc maxim nonnulli faciunt Curiales, qui consueverunt terrenis Principibus flexis genibus et nudo capite ministrare, &c. Hunc ergo tantae promissionis accepta fiducia totis nisibus collaudemus: illi simplicitate recta humiliemur: illi mentis & corporis capita non verecundemur nudare & inclinare, qui Deus fortis pro nobis infirmis se inclinavit, ut homo infirmus fieret, ut humana firmitas soliditate perpetua firmaretur. A passage which may happily imply, that in those times men did use to bow their heads (not knees) to Jesus Christ the King of Kings, who bowed his head for them: But this was not as I take it, at every recital of his name Jesus, but at the lifting up of the host in the time of the Mass, or at the passing by of the sign of the Cross, as the sense and words import.
Sanctus Franciscus, the Arch-Frier, who lived about the year 1230, in his Litera ad Sacerdotes: hath this ensuing clause. Salutē in eo qui redemit et lavit nos in sanguine suo: Cujus nomen audientes adorate eum cum timore et reverentia proni in terra; Dominus Jesus * Christus, altissimus filius nomen illi, qui est benedictus in seculo, Amen. Which implies an injunction from this Arch-Frier, St. Francis, for adoration of the Lord Jesus Christ at that time, when as his name was mentioned.
Frier David de Augusta: who flourished about the year 1240. De 7. Processibus religiosi cap. 11. writes thus. Sunt exteriores caeremoniales observantiae; ut inclinationes, genuflectiones in horis, pulsationes, et omnes gesticulations, quibus claustrales utuntur in divino officio, vel alijs, quibus saepe minus virtuosi majorem vim faciunt, quā aliqui perfecti, et magis devoti. Which seems to imply; that Monks in those days (for of them he writes) did use duckings and genflections, either to the host, the crucifix, or altar, and it may be to the name of Jesus; in which ceremonies the less virtuous, saith he, were for the most part most devout.
These are the only passages I find in all antiquity before the Council of Lions, which give any color to the use or practice of this Ceremony; which was never established in the Church, till Pope Gregory the 10. his time; who in the Popish Council of Lions, in the year 1273 made this Decree. Decet domū Domini sanctitudo: decet ut cujus in pace factus est locus, ejus cultus sit cum debita veneratione pacificus Sit itaque ad Ecclesias humilis et devotus ingressus; sit in ijs quieta conversatio, Deo grata • inspicientibus placida, quae considerantes non solum instruat, sed et reficiat. Convenientes ibidem nomen illud, quod est super omne nomen, a quo aliud sub c •• lo non est datum hominibus, in quo salvos fieri credentes oporteat, nomen videlicet Jesus Christi, qui salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum, exhibitione reverentiae specialis attollant: et quod generaliter scribitur; ut in nomine Jesus omne genu slectatur, singuli singulariter in seipsis implentes (praecipue dum aguntur Missarum sacra mysteria) gloriosum illud nomen quandocunque recolitur, flectant genua cordis sui, quod vel capitis inclinatione testentur. This is the highest antiquity, that any Papist or Jesuit hath hitherto found out, to justify their bowing at the name of Jesus. Yet this Constitution binds men only, to bow the knees of their hearts, ( not of their bodies) at the naming of Jesus; (and that especially whiles the Mass is acting) which bowing of the heart, they must testify, by the inclination of their heads, not of their knees.
After this, Pope John the 22, about the year 1330: to induce men to the practice of this Popish Ceremony, did, as Salmeron the Jesuit records; grant 200 days of true Indulgence to all who should bend their knees, or incline their heads, or knock their breasts, at the name of Jesus. Therefore it was then no received duty.
Since that, about the year 1420, one Bernardinus, a Franciscan Frier, and a Popish Canonized Saint, a great lover and admirer of the name of Jesus, did earnestly exhort the people in all his Sermons and public exhortations, that they would give devotion, bowing and reverence to the name of Jesus, which is above every name, in which every knee doth bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth: neither is there any other name under heaven given to men, in which they can be saved. This Frier, the better to draw the people to adore and bow to the name of Jesus, did use about the end of his Sermons, to show unto them a picture, in which the name JESUS, was written in golden Letters, enclosed on every side with Sun beams; or a Glory: which Pictured name the people beholding did most devoutly adore, with bended knees. For which fact of his being complained against by some who maligned his fame, to Pope Martin the 5. this Pope when as he had heard his answer, gave him free liberty, not only to preach, but likewise to carry about and show unto the people this picture of the name of Jesus. From which pattern of his, all pictures of the name of Jesus both in glass-windows, Popish Authors, and Mass-books were at first derived. Indeed Antoninus records: that Pope Martin enjoined him that he should no more show this picture unto the people, lest some superstition, or scandal should be raised in the Church by this his novalty: which injunction he obeyed. But Pope Clement the 7. ( as Molanus records) at the request of the Friers Minorites, ordained, that all their Order, and the Nuns of the Order of St. Clare, should use this picture; and withal he appointed a double great solemn feast, of the most holy name Jesus, ( in which its likely this name was solemnly adored and bowed to; ) which feast, as Stengelius writes, is most famous through many Churches, and among the common people.
This Ceremony, it seems, was not yet so generally received as the Papists did desire: and therefore the Popish Council of Basil: Anno Dom. 1431. Sess. 21. Tit. Quomodo divinum o •• icium in Ecclesia celebrandum sit: decreed: That all Canonical persons, in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, whiles they were saying their Canonical hours, when the glorious name of Jesus was named, should bow their heads, not knees: The words of which Decree are these. Statuit igitur sancta Synodus, ut in cunctis cathedralibus ac collegiatis Ecclesijs, &c. Horas canonicas dicturi, etc. Cum dicitur Gloria Patri, Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, omnes consurgaut. Cum nominatur gloriosum illud nomen, Jesus, in quo omne genu flectitur coelestium, terrestrium et inferorum, omnes caput inclinent.
The Provincial Popish Council of Sienna, or Seine, in the year 1524. Following the pattern of the Council of Basil, Decreta Morum, cap. 18. established the use of this Ceremony in all Collegiate and Cathedral Churches, in the very selfsame words. viz. Et ut in majoribus Ecclesijs cultus Dei vivi sanctior, juxta majorum 〈◊〉 in melius reformetur: statuimus, ut in Cathedra •• bus ac collegiatis et conventualibus Ecclesijs, horis debitis, &c. Horas autem canonicas dicturi &c. Cum nominatur illud nomen gloriosum, Jesus, in quo omne genu flectitur coelestiū, terresti i • et inferorū, omnes caput ( not genu) inclinent. And Decreta Fidei cap. 14, it draws this Argument, from this very Ceremony, to prove the lawfulness of worshipping the image of Christ. Et nos quidem non quasi ante divinitatem, ante imaginem prosternimur; sed illum adoramus, quem per imaginem aut passum, vel in throno sedentem, recordamur. Et dum per ipsam picturam quasi per Scripturam, ad memoriam Filium Dei reducimus; animum nostrum de resurrection laetificat, aut de passion mulcet, non majore quid • m idololatriae periculo, quàm cum in nomine Jesus omne genu flectitur, coelestium, terrestrium et inferorum. Quem enim vocabula cursim auribus insinuate, hunc eundem fidelibus oculis imago sedulo repraesentat.
Not long after this, the Diocesan Popish Synod of Augusta, Anno 1548, cap. 23. in more obscure terms, prescribes this bowing, &c. to all Ecclesiastical persons, not only at the recital of the name of Jesus, but of the Virgin Mary too. The Canon runs thus: Cum autem Deo Opt. Max. Creatori et Redemptori suo honorem, timorem et reverentiam homo tanquam creatura debeat; multos{que} videmus ea in re damnata ignavia desides esse; omnibus Ecclesiasticis personis nostrae Dioecesis district praecipiendo mandamus, ut post haec summa pietate Deum ubique et honorent, et timeant, praecipue vero in templis humiliter revereantur et venerentur. Et quum in nomine Domini nostri Jesus Christi omne genu coelestium, terrestrium et inferorum flectendum sit; volumus, ut omnes quotiescunque in sacris Concionibus • aut Missis nomine sanguinis vel corporis Christi, aut Dei genitricis Mariae Virginis fiat mentio, aut quando canticum, Gloria in excelsis, aut gloria tibi Domine, aut Evangelij initium, aut Na • ivitatis Christi ex Virgin, et incarnatio in Symbolo, aut gratiarum actio in praefatione, aut hujusmodi alia in divinis o •• icijs canuntur, vel commemorantur, detec. to capite, genibus{que} flexis, ante Altare, vel ut locus tempus{que} postulaverit, Deo reverentiam exhibeant debitam, et populum ad ejus rei imitationem verbis factis{que} commoveant at{que} hortentur.
The very next year after, the Provincial Popish Synod of Moguns or Mainz, under Sebastian the Arch-bishop, Anno Dom. 1549. cap. 59. which hath this title to it. Missa, quo gestu, et qua devotione audienda: this Ceremony was thus enjoined. Sedulo commonendus est populus fidelis, Clerici etiam per Praelatos debita animadversione inducendi, ut in celebratione Missarum, adversus tantum mysterium, quantum quisp; per valitudinem potest, etiam corporis gestu reverentiam quandam adhibeant: videlicet, ut dum in Collectis, pro communi orbis terrarum incolumitate, ad Deum praeces funduntur, ipsi quoque tanquam hujus sacrae Communionis cives, suas praeces cum oratione publica conjungunt, et vultu ad altare verso, aperto et demisso capite stantes, gestum orantibus convenientem prae se ferant. Pari religione ad nomen Salvatoris nostri Jesus Christi, similiter ad Evangelium, Magnificat; Benedictus, Nunc dimitti • , Gloria in Excelsis • Gloria Patri, caeteras{que} id genus officiorum partes, sic genuum flectione, apertione capitis, ac totius corporis gestu se componant, ut ad ea quae ib • aguntur, animum intendere videantur.
The Popish Council of Reims since that, viz. Anno Domini 1583. as Bochellus records, made this Decree or Canon following: In pronunciatione nominis Jesus, etcùm dicitur versus, Gloria Patri, caput aperiant et inclinent. That in the pronouncing of the name Jesus, and when the verse, Glory be to the Father, was said or read, men should uncover their heads and bow. Which Canon extends not unto women, who ought not to uncover their heads in the Church; much less to come thither as so many strumpets, with cut, or broidred powldred hair, as our Viragoes do of late: Whereas the words of Phil. 2. 9, 10, In the name of Jesus every knee should bow: extend to women, as well as men: and rather to women's bowing, (who in their courtesies bow both their knees full low) than to men's; who in their common courtesies or legs at the name of Jesus, or to men, bow only one, not both their knees: whereas this text requires every knee to bow; and so enjoins the bowing of both knees, not of one alone; the courtesies of women, not the heads, the caps, or legs of men.
The Popish Council of Aquitan: alias Council: Bituricense, the very next year following: viz. Anno Dom: 1584, promulgated this Canon to the like effect. In sine Psalmorum, et ubicun{que} Gloria sanctissimae Trinitati redditur, omnes consurgant, et in invocation nominis Jesus, genu flectant: Which may be construed as well of kneeling only in the invocation of the name of Jesus, as of bowing at the pronunciation of the name of Jesus.
Besides these several Popish Councils; the Sorbonists about the year 1540, from Phil: 2. v. 9, 10. as Calvin and Marlorat on that text record: began to publish and teach this Doctrine; that as oft as the name of Jesus should be mentioned, ( as in some Portuasses and Mass-books it is repeated 12, 20, & 30, if not 40 times together) so often men must bow their knees: for which Doctrine write Calvin and Marlorat, they are more than ridiculous. Plusquam ridiculi sunt Sorbonici Sophistae, &c. See page 5 before.
After these, the Rhemists about the year 1 • 82, in their Notes in their Rhemish Testament, on Phil, 2. v. 9. 10 sect: 2 & on Apoc: 13. sect. 7. set on this Ceremony in an higher strain, where they write thus. By the like wickedness the Protestants charge the faithful people for capping or kneeling, when they hear the name of Jesus, as though they worshipped not our Lord God therein, but the syllables or letters, or other material elements, whereof the word written or spoken consi • teth: and all this by sophistications to draw the people from due honor and devotion toward Christ Jesus, which is Satan's drift, by putting scruples into poor simple men's minds, about his Sacraments, his Saints, his Cross, his Name, his Image, and such like, to abolish all true Religion out of the world, and to make them plain Atheists. But the Church knoweth Satan's cogitations, and therefore by the Scripture and reason, warranteth andteacheth all her children to do reverence whensoever Jesus is named, because Catholics do not honor these things, nor count them holy for their matter, color, sound and syllables, but for the respect and relation they have to our Savior; bringing us to the remembrance and apprehension of Christ, by sight, hearing, and use of the same signs, else why make we not reverence at the name of Jesus the son of Sirach, as well as at Jesus Christ. And it is a pitiful case to see these profane subdeties of heretics to take place in religion, which were ridiculous in all other trade of life. When we hear our Prince or Sovereign named, we may without these scruples do obeisance. But towards Christ it must be superstitious. And here it is much to be noted, that the Protestants pulling down the Image of Christ out of all Churches, and the sign of the Cross from men's foreheads, and taking away the honor and reverence of the name of Jesus, do make room for Antichrists Image, and mark, and name. Thus the Rhemists, whose steps and genius the moderne Protestant advocates and Patrons of bowing at the name of Jesus, do follow to an hairs breadth; though Dr. Fulke, in his Answer to the Rhemish Testament, Notes, on Phil. 2, secti • 2 and on Apoc: 13, sect; 7. Dr. Whitaker in his Answer to William Reinolds the Rhemist: Cantabrig • 1590, p: 398, 399. Mr. Cartwright in his Answer to the Rhemish Testament Notes on Phil: 2, sect: 2. Dr. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi, Century 2, Error: 51, Dr. Aytie in his Lectures on Phil: 2. 9, 1 • . And above all other, that Reverend Father of our Church, Gervase Babington, Bishop of Worcester, a professed enemy to this Popish Ceremony, In his Exposition of the Catho like Faith; in his Works in Folio, London, 1622, part 2, page 195, 196, 197 professedly condemn this Doctrine, this Ceremony of theirs, as a gross ridiculous Popish Error: which is no ways grounded on Phil: 2, verse 9, 10. as all these: together with Pareus, Commentarius in cap: 14, ad Romanos, verse. 11. Col: 1475, 1476, 1477. Johannes Brenz in his Explicatio in Epist Pauli ad Phillip: c: 2, v: 9, 10. Johannes Piscator, Scholia in cap: 2, ad Philip: v: 9: 10: pag: 1166. and Obser: 6. ex verse: 10, p: 1162. to omit all others formerly quoted, do largely prove.
Since these, I find some private Popish. Authors, (especially the Jesuits, who deriving the style of their Order from the name of Jesus, do most stickle for this bowing at the name of Jesus;) who have written in defense and patronage of this Popish Ceremony: As namely one Alphonsus Salmeron a famous Jesuit: who in his Works at large: Tom: 1, Prolegomenon. 24. De Dignit. et Majest. Evang: p. 387, 388, writes thus. That certain Popes of Rome, ( and among the rest, Pope John the 22. who granted an Indulgence for 200 days to all who should either bow their knees, or incline their heads, or knock their breasts at the name of Jesus) have taught, that men are to bow their heads or knees at the naming of Jesus to represent the great humiliation and ex •• inition of Christ: and that a certain Monk was cuffed by the Devil for omitting this bowing, &c. And Operum Tom: 3, Tract. 37. Vccatum est nomen ejus Jesus: p: 335, he records; That the name of Jesus is worthy all worship, genuflection and adoration, in which name Paul would have every knee to bow both of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. For this name, whether it be pronounced with the mouth, or heard with the ear, or where ever it is written, painted, or engraven, is worthy divine worship; not for the bare word, writing, or picture it self, but for the signification of it: as the Cross and Image of Christ are deservedly adored with the worship of Latria, for the type and mystery represented in them. &c. The same Doctrine we shall find in Comelius a Lapide a Jesuit, in his Commentary on Phil. 2. 9, 10. and in Carolus Stengelius De SS. Nomine Jesus, cap: 23. where he quotes this text of Phil. 2. 9, 10. and the Decree of Pope Gregory the 10. informing Protestants: ibid: p: 125, 126. that Papists honor not the Letters, syllables or sound of the name Jesus, but the thing contained and signified together with the sound and syllables: But some, saith he, may say: Why do we bow at the name of Jesus, rather than at the name of Christ? I answer, because Christ is not a proper name, but a declaration of Christ's kingdom and power: But Jesus is a proper name, which he hath bought with his great pain, and hath received as a reward of his labor. For although this name were imposed on him in his very Circumcision, and promised to him in his conception, yet both these were done, because he ought to do that in his time, which the name doth signiie; to wit, to save his people. Paul therefore affirms, that this name was given to him, because he actually performed this with his great pain. Phil: 2. He humbled himself, therefore God hath highly exalt • d him, and given him a name above every name: that in the name of Jesus every knee should 〈◊〉 , &c. Therefore this most honorable name is given, because he merited it. The name it self is thus honored, because be hath merited it. As oft therefore as we Catholics honor the name of Jesus by bowing the knee, so oft we give unto him due and deserved honor, which he hath merited with a great price, so oft we do that we might and are bound to do; not only 〈◊〉 of cong •• ity for the greatness of the benefit conferred upon us, but also out of debt, by reason of the will and precept of the eternal Father; who hath therefore given this name unto his Son, that in this name every knee should • ow, that all should worship this name, and in worshipping should confess, that Jesus is in the glory of his Father. But as oft as the heretics (who utter and hear this name without any reverence, because they have not the holy Ghost) do not worship this name, as oft as they refuse to bow and worship; as oft as they decide others who worship and bow the knee unto it; so oft they violate the precept and will of God the Father; so oft they do injury to God the Some, and deny him his due honor; so oft they contradict the Apostle, so oft they scandalize, or rather decide the Church of God: Finally, so oft they d • e acceptable service to the Devil, who hath in an especial manner taught them this, and by them doth 〈◊〉 this impiety unto others. This 〈◊〉 much more to this purpose doth this Benedictine Fr • er, Stengeli • s, write: which I thought good in part to transcribe, because its verbati •• the same with Mr. Widdowes, and other late Protestants writings, and Sermons to this purpose; between whom and these, there is now no difference at all in this point of ••• ing 〈◊〉 the ••• ing of Jesus, for ought that I can find; and so they are both accorded.
Finally, ••• sseby Richardus Hampole his Book De 〈◊〉 nominis Jesus with ••• dry other Popish Authors, who have written largely of this subject, and found out many absurd, ridiculous, cabalisticall conceits and mysteries in the very letters of the name Jesus, to draw more reverence and bowing to it: The Popes, the Church and Priests of Rome, to advance this Ceremony the more, have inserted this notable prayer for the bowers at the name of Jesus, into the Mass of the name Jesus: ( for which very name they have a particular Mass, and Psalter, as they have a Feast:) God, who hast made the most glorious name of Jesus Christ thy only Son amiable with the chief affection of sweetness to thy faithful ones, and dreadful and terrible to evil spirits, mercifully grant, that all those who devoutly worship this name of Jesus on earth; may receive the sweetness of its holy consolation in this present world, and in the world to come may obtain the joy of endless exultation and bliss in heaven, by the same our Lord Jesus Christ thy Son. The benefit of which Mass-prayer, our moderne Advocates for bowing at the name of Jesus, with all their zealous Proselytes, may do well to claim.
This is the only true gennine Pedegree and progress of this much pressed Duty, and admired Ceremony, of bowing at the name of Jesus, that I in my poor reading can find in all antiquity. If better, graver, or more learned Heralds can derive its Parentage higher, ( as some have vainly endeavored, to deduce it from the Fathers, and the constantpractise of the Primitive Church; when as I am confident upon good inquiry, that there is no one Father, no ancient Writer extant, to prove or warrant what they write, as the examination of their alleged testimonies will at first discover,) I shall be willing to be corrected and instructed by them. But if they must needs concur with me in this its Popish Discent, which I have here set down; (as I presume they must, since Popish Priests and Jesuits, who have been most inquisitive in discovering its original, have raised it no higher than the Popes I have recited:) let them now at last for very shame (unless they intend to turn professed Jesuits, and open Champions for the Romish whore,) contend no more for such a Duty such a Ceremony, which had no other Father, but the forenamed Popes; no other Mother, Nurse, or Midwife, but the Antichristiā Church of Rome, with whose Popish Ceremonies, Relics, Altars, Images, Crucifixes, Genuflections, Bowings and such like idolatrous, superstitious, ridiculous Rites, which get ground apace upon us; the reformed Church of England, with all her faithful Bishops, Ministers, Members, ( especially since the prodigious, unparalleled hellish Powder-plot) should stand at everlasting defiance; for fear God give us over to strong delusions to believe her impious lies to our damnation; and then shower down his long-threatened judgments on us, (of which the late revived Plague, and feared Famine, should now in time admonish us) to our eternal ruin. What therefore Tertullian writes of Stage-plays, ( which had the very Devil himself for their original Author, as he, with others largely proves, which should cause all Christians, who in their very baptism have renounced the Devil and all his works, &c. forever to abandon them:) Facit ad originis maculam, ne bonum existimes quod initium à malo accepit: the same shall be my conclusion in the point in question; Bowing at the name of Jesus, had its original, growth and progress from the Antichristian Popes and Church of Rome, who propagated it by their Indulgences, to justify their idolatrous bowing to Images, Crucifixes, Hosts and Altars, as I have fully manifested in the premises: therefore proceeding from such a putr • d fountain, such an impure Parentage, no pious Protestant, I dare say, can repute it good, much less praise-worthy. Oderis itaque Christiane, cujus auctores non poteris non odisse.
Errata, and Omissions.
COurteous Reader, I thought good to admonish thee of one gross omission, which through the Printers carelessness hath happened in the 36. page, line 1. between idolatrous too? and Francis de Croy, &c. which because it interrupts the Discourse, I shall request thee instead of Francis de Croy, &c. to read as followeth.
Bowing at, to, or before Altars, how highly soever some men esteem it, had its original from idolatrous Pagans: who, as they danced and stood round about their Altars when they sacrificed; in which, on which, or at leastwise by and over which, the Images of their Idols were placed or engraven; (in imitation of which, most Popish glittering Altars have their gaudy Crucifixes, Saints, or Images standing on them, near them, over them; to entice the people to bow down unto them: when as God commanded all his Altars, to be made of naught but earth; or of unhewen stones: (not polished, graven marble, gold, or silver:) without any images or curious sculptures; the better to keep the people from bowing to them, or before them; to which more rich materials of silver, gold and pearls, set out by art, might easily induce them; ) so they likewise honored their Altars with cap and knee, bowing down unto them, yea war shipping, praying at them and before them. Whence God enjoins the Israelites. [Exod. 34. 13. Deutr. 7. 5. c: 12, 3. Judge. 6. 25, 26, 28, 30. 2 Kings 11. 18. 2 Chron: 14, 3, c. 30. 14, c. 32, 12. c. 33, 15, & 34, 4, 5, 7. Isaiah 36, 7. Hosea 8, 11, & 10. 1, 2.] to throw down and quite demolish the Altars and Images of these Idolaters, (which the good Kings of Israel did accordingly. ) not only because they sacrificed on them, but because they also worshipped and bowed to them, and before them: As Exod. 20, 4, 5, 23; 24, 25. c: 23, 24, c: 34, 13. Levite. 26. 1. Deutr. 7. 5. cap: 12, 2, 3. 2 Kings 11, 18, c: 18. 22. 2 Chron: 14, 3, 5. c: 28. 24. 25. c: 30, 14. c: 32, 12. c: 34, 4, 5, 7. Isaiah 2. 8, 9. c: 17, 8. c: 36, 7. Hosea 10. 1, 2. Acts 17, 23. 2 Chron: 25: 14. compared together: incomparable Dr. Rainolds, De Roman • e Ecclesi • Idololatria, l: 2, c: 3, sect: 46, p: 431, 432, Francis De Cr • y in his first Conformity, cap: 24, with others testify. Then read as in the Copy.
Other material Omissions and Errataes there are, which because they are already corrected, I here pass by, informing thee only of one thing worth thy observation: To wit, that it appears expressly by Levite: 1, 11, 16. Exod: 20, 26. c: 26, 35, c: 40, 6, 7. 26, to 34. Josh: 22, 10, 11, 2 Sam: 24, 18, 25. 1 Kings 6, 22. c: 8, 64 c: 18, 32, 35. 2 Kings 11, 11 c: 12; 9. c: 16, 14, c: 1, 5. c: 23, 12, 2 Chron: 1, 6. c: 5, 12. c: 15, 8. c: 33, 4, 5. Psal: 26, 6. Isaiah 19, 19. Ier: 11, 13. c: 17, 2. Ez • ch: 6, 4, 5. c: 8, 5. c: 9, 2. c: 40, 47. Joel 2, 17. Matth: 23, 35, that both religious and idolatrous Altars heretofore, did not stand Eastward, nor yet at the east and of their Temples against a wall, at Popish Altars, and some Communion-tables turned Altar-wise, now do 〈◊〉 Northward, or Southward; either before the d ••• es, or in the Court, the porch, the entrance, the body, or midst of their Temples; and that in such a manner, as men might have space enough either to stand, or walk even round about them. And hence I suppose our Common-Prayer-Book, our Canons, & Qu. Elizabeth's Injunctions, expressly order: That all our Communion Tables, when the Sacrament is administered; shall stand, (not in the East end of the Chancel Altarwise, with one side against the wall, where some unconformable over-Conformists have lately hedged them in; for which an Inditement lies against them upon the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 2. besides other Ecclesiastical Censures by their Ordinary:) but in the body of the Church or Chancel, so as the Communicants may place themselves round about them. Men usually sit round about their Tables at meals: yea Christ himself & Apostles sat round the Table when he instituted this his holy Sacrament, as all the Evangelists witness, and so should we do too. Which I observe the rather, to control the irregular practice of some ignorant Popish Innovatours: who against the express command both of our Common-prayer-book, Canons, Injunctions, yea the very practice of Christ, his Apostles, and of the Church before & since their time; dare turn Communion-tables into Altars, (though we have now none else but spiritual Priests and Sacrifices, and so no Altars, but one spiritual Altar, which is Christ:) or at leastwise place thē Altarwise, against the wall and East-end of the Church, even when the Communion is administered. Which uncanonicall practices I hope they will now reform; or else I trust our Bishops in their Consistories, or in their default, our Judges and • ustices in their Sessions, will legally proceed against them; and against those who set up Images and Saints Pictures in our Churches, contrary to the express Statute of 3. E. 6. c. 10. the Homilies against the peril of, 〈◊〉 •••• blished by the 22. and 35. Articles of our Church, and by the Statute of 13, Eliz. c. 12. which confirms our Articles, as the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of England, and so by consequent our Homilies 〈◊〉 contrary to Qu. Eliz. Injunctions, Injunct. 2, 3, 23, 25. and the Articles to be inquired of in Visit • tions, set forth in 1559. Artic: 2, & 45 All which expressly command all Images, Crucifixes, Shrines, Pictures, Paintings, Candlesticks, Bundles and Rolls of wax, and all other Monuments of f • ined Miracles, Pilgrimages, Idolatry and Supersticion, to be taken away, defaced, destroyed, and utterly extinct, so that there remain no memory of the same in walls, glass-windows, or elsewhere, neither in Churches, nor private houses. Yea contrary to the Statate of 3. Iacobi chap. 5. Which as it enacts: That no person or persons shall bring from beyond the seas, nor shall print, sell, or buy any Popish Primmers, Ladies Psalters, Manuels, Rosaries, Popish Catechisms, Missalls, Breviaries, Portalls, Legends and Lives of Saints, containing superstitious matter, printed or written in any language whatsoever, nor any other superstitious books printed or written in the English Tongue; upon pain of forfeiture of 40 shillings for every such book. (A law that needs due execution now, when so many of these Books are brought over into England every Mart, and sold publicly almost in every shop without control:) soit authorizeth Justices of the Peace, Majors, Baylifes, and other chief Officers in their liberties, to search the houses & lodgings both of convicted and suspected Recusants for such books, and relics, and to deface and burn their Altars, Pictures, Beads, and Crucifixes, as the very Relics of Popery and monuments of Idolatry: All which our Church, our State, thus abolishing and condemning, I hope they will speedily inflict such penalties on all those Popish agents who now endeavor to reduce thē, as their offense demerits, and our Laws prescribe.