Selected quad for the lemma: authority_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
authority_n bishop_n church_n primitive_a 2,286 5 9.3719 5 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A10179 Certaine quæres propounded to the bowers at the name of Iesvs and to the patrons thereof. Wherein the authorities, and reasons alleadged by Bishop Andrewes and his followers, in defence of this ceremony, are briefly examined and refuted; the mistranslation of Phil. 2.10.11. cleared, and that tet, with others acquitted both from commanding or authorizing this novell ceremony, here gived to be unlawfull in sundry respects. Prynne, William, 1600-1669. 1636 (1636) STC 20456; ESTC S103164 42,726 52

There are 3 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

antiquity and a●mittinge it true whether doth it not cleerely demonstrate that the primitive Christians who by this Argument used it not before Arrianisme sprung with those who used it only on this ground reputed it no duty prescribed by this text because thus occasionally taken up to refell and discover Arrians That they bowed as much at the name of Christ Sonne of God Saviour Emanuel and other names or Titles of Christ as at his name Iesus since the Arrians denyed his Deity principally as he was Christ this being their ordinary assertion confuted condemned by the orthodox Councells and Fathers that Christ was not God and opposed his eternall Deity when he was stiled by any of these names or Titles as much as when he was called Iesus or as he was a Iesus That they bowed at the name of the Holy Ghost since as many or more Hereticks denied his Deitie as denied Christs And that this bowinge is now needelesse and superfluous for the present on this grounde especially in our Churches where none deny Christs Deity as the Arr●ans and the other auncient Hereticks did and all pray unto him as God even with bended knees and hartes in our common Liturgie as CHRIST not Iesus have mercie upon us c. testifieth Whether the Christians in the primitive Church for above 800. yeares after Christ used not alwayes to pray standing betweene Easter and Whitsuntide and on every Lords day throughout the yeare and de geniculis adorare to adore standing● Never using but expressly prohibiting by sundry Councells all to kneele or bow their knees in time of prayer Sacraments or Sermons in honour and memory of Chris●s Resurrection And were not their meetings from hence termed Stations Statutes or Standings because they thus performed all their Religious Lordsday exercises standinge If so as all auncient all moderne Ecclesiasticall Historians and Write●s acknowledge ● Then that Assertion of Bishop Andrewes and others is false That the primitive Christians use to kneele at the Sacrament and to bow their knees when ever they offered prayed or heared the name of Iesus mentioned in time of divine Service or Sermons since betweene Easter and whitsu●tide and on every Lords day the ordinary time of their publick assemblies they never used to bow their knees no not so much as in prayer in which it is most proper much lesse then at the Sacrament or name of Iesus at which we finde not in any antiquity that they used to kneele or bow the knee though they vsually did it in all their prayers and assemblies on the weeke dayes after Whitsuntide The only thinge the Bishops marginall authorities proove though neither himselfe nor any one else may thence inferre The primitive Church and Christians used in their Weekeday meetings after Whitsunday to pray kneelinge Ergo they used to kneele at the sacrament and bow their knees at the naminge of Iesus in time of divine service and sermons especially on the Lordsday whereon they never kneele it being a meere inconsequent Whether S. Hieroms words quoted by Bishop Andrewes and others Mori● est e●im Ecclesiastici Christo genn flectere It is an Ecclesiasticall Custome to pray kneelinge to Christ not Ies●s be a convincinge authority to proove that the primitive Christians used to bow at the name of Iesus not of Christ in the time of divine Service and Sermons when as this Text speakes only a bowinge of the knee in prayer to Christ not Iesus not of a bowinge at the naminge of Iesus which name is not so much as mentioned in this place of his and the bowinge here spoken of ascribed only to the person not to the name of Christ muchlesse of Iesus yet this is the Antiquity they most relye on Or whe●her S. Cirylls words on Isai. 45 where there is not so much as any mention of the name Iesus muchlesse of any bowinge at or to it but only a relation that all Nations shall be converted to God Or Theodorets Exposition on Phil. 2.10 11. Who makes the name of the begotten Sonne of God not Iesus the name above every name intended in this Text which he proves out of Heb. 1.4.5 Psal. 2.7.12 Or Ambrose his words The knee is flexible where with before the other members the offence of the Lord is mittigated anger appeased grace provoked For this is the guift of the highest Father towards his Sonne That in the name In nomine of Iesus every knee should be bowed of things in heaven earth and under the earth and that every tounge should confesse that the Lord Iesus is in the glory of God the Father For there are two thinges which above others appease God Humility and Faith The foote therefore expresseth the affection of Humility and the obsequiousnesse of diligent service Which Father readinge this Text In not at the name makinge the bowinge there expressed to be subjection humility and service to Christ not any genuflexion at the naminge of Iesus in time of divine Service and Sermons of which there is not one sillable or any the least intimation in this passage and defininge the name Sonne in this place if any name not Iesus and the name God in his Commentary on this Text the name above every name here intended Whether I say can these impertinent Authorities the only places quoted by the Bishop and his followers to justifie the antiquity of this Ceremony prove that the primitive Church and Christians used to bow at every mentioninge of the name Iesus in time of divine Service and Sermons or that this is a duty of the Text when as they never so much as intimate any such thinge and neither make the name Iesus the name nor this kinde of bowinge the bowinge here prescribed Yet these are our greate learned mens best yea sole Authorities on which they would founde this novell dutie which doe in truth confound it Whether the Bishops and others Reasons for bowinge at the name Iesus drawne only from the Nature Letters Quality or Circumstances of the name not of the Person of Iesus their bowinge and reverence given to the person of Iesus as they pretende only in respect of his name Iesus at which to which name of his they only bow when and because it is named not at other seasons when his person is as really as fully represented to them under other of his names and Titles not to this his name in respect of his person which is of equall dignity when ever represented under all or any his names and Titles together with the bendinge of their heads and bodies at every mention of the name Iesus in a more speciall and humble manner even in the midst of their prayers when they are allready prostrate on their knees to God and Iesus and their mindes immediately fixed upon both their persons be not on infallible demonstration that they adore the name more then the very person
CERTAINE QVAERES propounded to the Bowers at the NAME OF IESVS and to the Patrons thereof Wherein the Authorities and Reasons alleadged by Bishop Andrewes and his Followers in defence of this Ceremony are briefly examined and refuted the Mistranslation of Phil. 2.10.11 cleared and that Text with others acquitted both from commanding or authorizing this Novell Ceremony here gived to be unlawfull in sundry respects Colossians 2.8 Beware lest any man spoyle you through Philosophie and Vaine deceit after the tradition of men after the Rudiments of the World and not after Christ Mathew 15.9 But in vaine doe they worship me teaching for doctrines the Commandements of men Isaiah 1.12 When ye come to appeare before me who hath required this at your hand Brentius in Levit. c. 17. Hypocritae observantes Sacra sine Verbo Dei instituta tunc pessimi sunt hoc est peccatores homicidae cum sibi optimi religiosissimi videntur The fourth Edition corrected In the Yeare M.DC.XXXVI The Publisher to the Reader CHristian Reader the strang violent late proceedings both of our High Commissions in their Commission Courts and of our Bishops and their Visitors in their unwarrantable Visitations upon Canons Oathes and Articles of their owne forging printed on their owne Names without any commission at all from his Majesty under his great Seale contrary to the statutes of 25. H. 8. c. 19.21.26 H. 8. c. 1.31 H. c. 26.37 H. 8. c. 17.1 Ed. 6. c. 2.1 Eliz. c. 1.2.5 Eliz. c. 1.8 Eliz. c. 1.13 Eliz c. 12. with other statutes and to their owne 12. Canon Yea contrary to the statute of Magna Charta c. 19. and the late Petition of Right now layd a sleepe hath occasioned me to sett forth another impression of these Quaeres wherein all the whole controversie concerning the Bowing of the name of Iesus in time of Divine service and sermon is summarily Discussed which Quaeres I would desire our Commissioners Bishops and Visitors to resolve and Answer in a satisfactory manner which yet they have not done before they violently without Law reason or lawfull authority silence suspend present excommunicate fine deprive or imprison any of their Fellow-Brethren or vex any of his Majesty Subjects as they have of late molested many either for omitting or speaking against this Ceremony It is the duty of all good Prelates first to instruct and informe mens consciences and judgment with the spirit of meeknesse in such Ceremonies which they have good cause to deeme unlawfull for them to use before they urge them with violence to the practice of them or rigidly proceed against them in judgment for omitting them This they have not hitherto sufficiently done in case of this much urged Ceremony pressing it only by Club-law without reason or moderation Let them therefore now satisfie these their weake Brethrens Quaeres if they can or else cease to molest them or urge this Ceremony longer if they cannot doe it since their great Guide Bishop Andrewes though in other things famous for his learning and Iudgement is doubles miserablie mistaken in this particular and can noe longer patronize either his owne or this their cause as these Quaeres will demonstrate having so oft times passed abrode in print without resolution Vale. A PREFACE FOr the better clearing of this ceremony to be no duty of this text of Phil. 2.10.11 be pleased in briefe to take notice of these foure particulars First what the Fathers whom Mr. Page confesseth not to bee for this ceremony generally interpret to be the name above every name mentioned in this text Very many of thē interpret it to be nothing else but the very name of God and Deity of Christ it selfe So Tertullian de Trinitate lib. Tom. 2. p. 261.262 Athanasius de Incarnatione Christi Contr. Apollinarium p. 271. C. Hilary in Psa. 2. p. 196 H Ambrose Rabanus Maurus Iohn Salisburie on Phil. 2.9 10. Dionysius Alexandrinus Epist. Contr. Paulum Samosatenum Bibl. Patr. Tom. 3. p. 74.75 Titus Bostrensis in cap. 1. Evang. Lucae Ibid. Tom. 4. p. 339. E. Idacius advers Varimadum lib. Ibid. p. 622. a. Caesarij Dialog 1. p. 650. Basilius Magnus de Spiritu Sancto ad Amphil. c. 8. Tom. 1. p. 180. Cyrillus Alexandrinus in Esayam l. 5. Tom. 1. p. 362. E.F. in Ioannis Evang. l. 11. c. 17. p. 666. c. 20. p. 669. a. c. 22. p. 670. D.E. Thesauri l. 13. Tom. 2. p. 270. E.F. Agobardus ad Ludovicum Imp. Bibl. Patrum Tom. 9. pars 1. p. 556. g. h. Paschatius Ratbertus in Matth. Evan. lib. 10. Ibid. pars 2. p. 1156. b. c. lib. 11. p. 1177. b. Exposit. in Psal. 44. p. 1249. G. Ioannis Cyperis de Inform. divini nominis cap. 11. Ibid. Tom. 11. p. 499. E. Paulus Aquiliensis Patr. Cont. Felicem Vrgelium Epist. l. 2. Aquinas 3 part qu. 49. Art 6. Conclusio Alexander Alensis Theol. Summa pars 1. qu. 21. m. 1. Artic. 4. together with Chytraeus Postil in Domin Palmarum pag. 160 Zanchius in Phil. 2.9 10. and other moderne Expositors Other Fathers and Writers interpret it to be the name of the onely naturall begotten Sonne of God Thus Hierom Theodoret Sedulius Remigius Beda Haymo Theophylact Anselme and Oecumenius on Phil. 2.10 11. Basil de Spirit Sancto c. 8 Tom. 1. p. 180. Augustine Contr Maximinum l. 2. c. 2. Sancti Procli Sermo in Transfig Christi Bibl. Patr. Tom. 1. pars 1. p. 536. C. Etherij Beati l. 1. Ibid. Tom. 8. p. 342. Musculus Aretius Zanchius with other late Expositors Others interpret this name to bee nothing else but the Glory Fame Lordship Soveraignty and universal dominion and Majesty of Christ. So Chrysostom Theodoret in Phil 2. Petrus Blesensis Serm. 46. Bibl. Patr. Tom. 11. pars 1. p. 210. C. and others of old Olevian Musculus Gualther Marlorat Dr. Ayray Bishop Babington and the whole streame of moderne interpriters Others refer this text to his name Christ as Paschatius Ratbertus Exposit. in Psal. 44. pag. 1246. g. Paulinus Epist. ad Augustinū Bibl. Patr. Tom 5. pars 1. p. 210. e Secondly What they meane by bowing the knee Not any actuall bowing of the knee in this life at the sound sight or hearing of the Name Iesus but a Vniversall subjection of all creatures to the Soveraigne Lordship judicature and supreme power of Christ especially at the day of judgement when this text shall be onely actually litterally and really fulfilled This all the Fathers and Writers quoted in the Appendix Lame Giles and premises and all the Authors extant that I have seene accord to bee the genuine true undoubted meaning Bishop Andrewes Dr. Boyes and Mr. Page himselfe confessing it Thirdly To what this bowing must be given by the Fathers verdict Not to the name Iesus but immediately to Christ himselfe Hence Hierom Com. l. 3. in Isayam 45. Gregory Nyssen de Anima Resurrect disp p. 104.212 Ambros. Enar. in Psal. 118. Octon 20. Hilari de Trinitate lib.
First or Third person of the Trinity and a greate disparity made betweene them If Iewes or Infidells should come into our Churches and observe this difference and disparity would they not forthwith conclude that we had no other God but Iesus that the Father and Holy Ghost were not esteemed of us to be God Or at least made not so greate and honorable a God as the Sonne and that Christ and Iesus were not one and the same person the one being thus bowed to not the other Yes verily We reade in the Booke of Martyrs that the Bishops and Commissioners appointed by Queene Mary to dispute with Cranmer Latymer and Ridley at Oxford when ever they named or heard the name of the Pope put of their Capps thereto as men now doe at the naminge of Iesus Which these 3. godly Martyrs would by no meanes doe But when God Christ or the Queene were mentioned they used no such Reverence to their names Did not these Commissioners then in our Martyrs judgments preferre the person the name of their Lord God the Pope before the persons the names both of God himselfe of Christ of the holy Ghost at leastwise of the Queene and thereby signifie that the Pope was more honorable and far greater then the Queene or any other earthly Potentate whose name could not challenge or commande the like reverence and Cappinge from them yea doubtlesse If Three men were sittinge together and those who passe by put of their Hats to one of them not to the other two doth not this make an inequallity betweene them advancinge the one that is thus capped or bowed too above his fellowes Certainely it doth I finde in the Booke of Martyrs P. 1699. That when Archbishop Cranmer was convented before the Popes Queenes Commissionors in S. Maries Church in Oxford he putting of his Cap and humblie bowing his knee to the ground made reverence to the Queenes Proctors and Commissioners who represented her person but beholding Bishop Brookes in the face who was the Popes Delegate and represented his person he put on his Cap againe making no manner of token of obedience towards him at all Whereat the Bishop being offended saith unto him that it might become him right well weiginge the honor veneration and authority he did represent to doe his dutie unto him Whereunto Doctor Cranmer answered that he hath once taken a solemne Oath never to consent to the admitting of the Bishop of Romes authority into this Realme of England againe and that he had done it advisedly and therefore would commit nothing either by signe or token which might winne his consent to the receivinge of the same and that he did it not for any contempt to the Bishops person which he could have bene content to have honored as well as any of the other If his Commission had come from as good an authority as theirs This answered he modestly wisely and patiently with his Cap on his head not once bowinge or makinge any Reverence to him that reverence to him that represented the Popes person which was wonderously of the people marked If this Archbishops puttinge off his Cap and bowinge his knee to the one and not to the other to the Queenes commissioners only not the Popes Did here in his owne the Commissioner and all the peoples judgment make a great disparity betweene the power and Iurisdiction of the one and other and preferre the one of them before the other Must not doth not the bowinge and cappinge at the name only of Iesus not of God the Father and God the holy Ghost uttered alltogether or severally doe the like noe doubt it doth Bishop Andrewes and other of our bowers at the name of Iesus teach us in expresse termes that the name Iesus is in this more honorable then all other Titles of Christ and exalted ahove them all because men must only bow their knees and vayle their Cappes to it but not to any other of his Titles If therefore their bowinge at the name of Iesus makes a disparity betweene it and all other names of his preferring it far aboue them all Must it not likewise make an inequallity and disparity betweene the names and persons of the Trinity too by the selfesame Person and advaunce Iesus above the Father and the holy Ghost at whose names they never bow or stir their Capps Wherefore this bowinge to at and Cappinge at the name Iesus only must needs make and imply an inequallity betweene the 3. Persons of the Trinity As M. Cartwright largely proveth in his Answere to the Rhemis●s Annotations on Phil. 2.9 10.11 Therefore it is neither to be practised nor endured among Christians who beleeve the pari●ie and equallitie of the Trinitie both in Essence internall and externall honor adoration and veneration to Whether if Bishop Andrewes Doctrine warranted by no Scripture be true in this particular that we must bow at the name of Iesus not of Christ because the end is better then the meanes and the end for which Christ was annointed better then his unction itselfe it will not hence followe that the humanity of Christ being annointed by his Divinity and the Holy Ghost And the Salvation of us men the end for which Christ was annointed are much better then his Divinity and the Holy Ghost himselfe the ointment and meanes annointing his Humanity and enabling him to be a Saviour And whether the playne meaninge of his Proposition be not this in substance that the Humanity of Christ is better then his Divinity or the Holy Ghosts Deitie and the Salvation of man the end better then the Deitie and Humanitie of Christ the meanes of mans salvation which is no lesse then Blasphemy to affirme What Father or ancient Writer for aboue 1250. yeares after Christ commenting on this Text makes Iesus the name aboue every name principally meant and intended in this Text and not rather the names God and Lord Or that makes this Ceremony of bowing or cappinge at every naminge of Iesus in time of divine Service or Sermons in the Church the bowinge spoken of in this Text and what are their words to this purpose Or whether it be not an undoubted truth that no Father or Writer for 1200. yeares after Christ and more made any such interpretation of these words or mention of any such Ceremony used in the Church which certainly used it not till above 1150 yeares after Christ and so deemed it not a duty of the Text or necessary Ceremony What Father Ecclesiasticall Historian or Writer for 1500. yeares after Christ relates that this Ceremony was taken up by the Christians in the primitive Church to justifie to testifie the eternall Deitie of Christ against the Arrians and other Hereticks who denied it whether this ground of the originall use of this Ceremony be not a meere groundlesse forgery and fancye of some late Writers voyde of all prooffe authority and not warranted by any