Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	scripture_n	speak_v	word_n	9,140	5	4.5911	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A78222	Apodeixis tou antiteichismatos. Or, a tryall of the counter-scarfe, made 1642. In answer to a scandalous pamphlet, intituled, A treatise against superstitious Iesu-worship: written by Mascall Giles, Vicar of Ditchling in Sussex. Wherein are discovered his sophismes: and the holy mother our church is cleered of all the slanders which hee hath laid on her. By the author of the Antiteichisma.	Barton, Thomas, 1599 or 1600-1682 or 3.	1643 (1643)	Wing B997; Thomason E87_13; ESTC R209874	118,628	143

and creatures created Powers Dignities Dominions that all things creatures powers in Heaven and Earth and under the Earth should subject themselves and all their strength vertues and abilities either willingly or unwillingly to Iesus Christ thus glorified and advanced and that they should expresse and shew forth that Iesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father for so I take it that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be understood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being often used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and thus this branch Christs exaltation will fully answer to that branch of his humiliation mentioned verse 7 where it is said that He tooke upon him the forme of a Servant and was made in the likenesse of Man but now being exalted he shall be manifested to be Lord in the Glory of God the Father Which shall be fully declared in the great Day of judgement when he shall appeare in his Glorious Name of Power and Glory And of this opinion are Ambrose and Hierome and other Fathers and Calvin and Zanchius and Piscator besides sundry other moderne Expositors doe allow of it Though the other expositions be sound viz. To the glory of God the Father because the honour of the Son is the honour of the Father Answer In the fifth Section having undertaken to give us the meaning of the Text you desire judgement and let it passe You say our Lord Iesus Christ being in the forme of God c. layd downe his Name and dignity and received a Name beneath all Names I challenge you in these words For though it be true that hee vailed his glory yet he layd not downe his Name What he ever was he remained still the Son of God Nor did he receive a Name beneath all Names though he and it were by sinners handled beneath all degrees of basenesse You goe on thus Wherefore God highly exalted him and gave him a Name above every Name that is glory above every creature Here you dealt not fairely with your Reader you say the Name given is glory must not then the Name under super above be glory too and the sense thus He hath given him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 glory above all glory If you look into S. Chrysostome Chrysost in Loc. Phil. 2. greater Schollers then your selfe kept that analogie Nor doe the Learned except the Arrians make glory a Name which Christ had not before but say God then did set out his glory in the highest that Jesus which was a Name of scorne among men might be the highest Name in Power and glory Nay Power and glory are the essentiall vertues of his Person but the Name given him or illustrated his must denote who and what the Person is It followes that all creatures should subject themselves willingly or unwillingly with all their abilities to Iesus Christ thus gloryfied and expresse that Iesus Christ is Lord in the glory of God the Father Here you enlarge the Text and shorten it For first all creatures are not capable of this adoration Secondly you obscure by generalls what the Apostle expresseth in particulars Not denying geniculation nor open confession you wrap them up in the vertues to be expressed by creatures Thirdly not subscribing to the manner and time of the duty you make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at the Name redundant As if you were now afraid to let the people know that when the wind shall turne you will maintaine outward worship and and open confession lawfull and necessary The observation that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is true and what I say of it is in my Antiteich Tract 9. Pag. 87. Your shewing also how Christs being in the glory doth answer to his being in the forme of a Servant is very good I will onely tell you what I said before Sect. 1. at the last fourthly you would come to even to confesse that Given is manifested that the Name above every Name is the Name of Power and glory and so you have in plaine termes viz. But now being exalted hee shall be manifested to be Lord in the glory of God the Father which shall be fully at last when he shall appeare in his glorious Name of power and glory There is first a manifesting of what he had no giving of that he had not Secondly his Name is of Power and glory Power and glory is not his Name And of this opinion are the Divines ancient and moderne which you have named and others see my Antiteich Tract 3. Pag. 15. 16. c. Now this exposition is full and easie making the sense cleere but the other exposition which they make makes the sense rugged and is not agreeable to the scope of the Text nor sense of other correspondent Scriptures For thus they reason Iesus Christ being in the forme of God thought it no robbery to be equall with God but made himselfe of no reputation c. Wherefore God highly advanced him and gave him a proper Name or Title above eve●y Name that when the Name Iesus shall be sounded out in the Church in the time of prayer or preaching for there and then say they is the place and time of this duty all things in Heaven and Earth and unde● the Earth should bow corporall knees A most absurd and senslesse exposition Answer Having done your exposition you give it this glosse It is full easie cleare You might have said short hard doubtfull Short chopping off the visible part of Gods Worship Hard making th● whole Text figurative Doubtfull not onely contradicting what you said before but opposing axiomes in divinity also and bringing in those creatures that come not within the compasse of the precept Were your mind right your meaning would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 uniforme and not involved To make all sure you insinuate into the Reader that our interpretation is rugged not agreeable to the scope of the Text nor sense of other correspondent Scriptures One said men are most like unto God cum vera loquuntur Sphinx Theolog. Phil. c. 24. when they speake the truth though he were an Ethnick Pythagoras spake like a Christian Take it not ill I say you here degenerate from your common profession though not from Puritanisme Doe not you know that the literall is the plaine and even sense How then can ours be rugged Yours are conscious and in my Antiteichisma who will reade may see that ours goes home with every tittle where then failes it in the Scope And you have beene taught the correspondence with other Texts why then is it private or si●gular The summe of our Tenet is this The Lord Jesus by the Vnion and for our Salvation was humbled wherefore also God super-exalted him and set out the Name of Jesus above every Name that for the Vnion and for our Salvation every rationall creature should bow at the Name of Jesus and every tongue confesse that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of

opinion and practise is a true expositition Let the Minor be disproved if it can The Major is proved from Rom. 12.6 If any Prophesie let him Prophesie according to the proportion of faith So 2 Pet 1.20 No Scripture hath any private interpretation It is an infallible rule set downe by Divines for the understanding of the Scriptures Thus saith learned Zanchius Zanchius de Scriptura pag. 422. Altera interpretandi Scripturas regula est c. Another Rule saith he of interpreting the Scriptures is a diligent accurate comparing of the Scriptures which are of the same thing one with another that is that we expound the more obsure Scriptures by those that are more evident and cleare for the Scripture is an interpreter of it selfe than which a better cannot be found And thus saith Austine Non ita esse interpretandum unum locum ut cum multis alijs pugnet Aug. de Doctrinâ Christianâ sed ut cum multis alijs consentiat We must not so understand one place that it disagree with many others but that it agree with many others This then their interpretation above mentioned agrees with no place but disagrees with all it is therefore none of Gods Truths Answer Your Major is false must an obscure Text be warranted by Scripture speaking of the same or in the same phrase Suppose there be no more Texts of the same may it not be knowne by examining it by the morall truth What else intends the Apostle Rom. 12.6 which you have induced for your selfe If any Prophesie let him Prophesie according to the proportion of Faith In the Greeke it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which some render the measure others the rule of faith In the one the Apostle meeteth with the fault of these times He would not have one man seeme to know all things but every one to keepe within his proportion In the other sense he teacheth the perfect canon of interpreting viz. that examination bee made ad Christianae fidei axiomata 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bez. in Annot according to the axiomes of the Christian faith which of themselves are to be beleeved And what other rule doth Saint Peter 2 Epistle 1.20 prescribe Were they the first and this observed your Enthusiasmes would not have broken forth among so many to helpe breake the peace of the Church But will Zanchius allow your assertion His second rule is Vt obscurae Scripturae per clariores interpretemur that we should interpret the obscure by the more cleare Or will Saint Augustine in saying one place may not disagree with many other confirme your proposition Nay and that you have urged makes against your selfe Your Authors will have the hard explained by the more easie if more there be if not by the analogy of the universall faith Your Minor is refelled in your former Section and in my Antiteichisma In your conclusion is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and because you there shew your Sophistry in such profane language let your patience know that the Hebrew Proverb Drus ad lit Vav 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vae malo vae illis qui adhaerent ei secludes not you SECTION VII WHatsoever bowing is required by the Text shall be necessarily performed by every Creature in Heaven in Earth and under the Earth But bowing at the Name Iesus shall not be performed by every Creature in Heaven in Earth and under the Earth Therefore Bowing at the Name Jesus is not required by the Text. The Minor is plaine for to omit now to speake of Angels Devills and dumbe creatures Bowing at the Name Iesus shall not be performed by the most men for many Nations know not Christ therfore cannot so bow all their life famous Churches doe not so bow If this then be the true bowing I would faine know how and at what time they shall performe it that in this life performe it not To deny the Major is absurd for the Text is plaine that Christ is advanced to so high a Name that every creature should bow to him in that name 2 It is such a bowing as there is also a demonstration that Christ is Lord therefore if any creature shall be exempted from the bowing in the Text Christ should not be their Lord which would be derogatory to Christs honour and contrary to evident Scriptures as Mat. 28 19. Where all Power is given Christ in Heaven and Earth And Heb. 1.2 where Christ is called Heire that is Lord of all things Whereas then some answer that though every one shall not bow at the Name Iesus yet every one is bound to doe it they ought to performe it I reply if that bowing be the duty of the Text every one of necessity must and shall doe it To affirme then that the duty of the Text should be done of all though it shall not is all one as to affirme that Christ should be Lord of every creature and it behoveth him so to be though he shall not If then bowing at the Name Iesus shall not bee performed of all it is manifest it is not required by the Text for all Expositors hold generally that the Text shall willingly or unwillingly be fulfilled of all Answer Your Major is true if by every creature you understand angels men and devills as the Fathers have expounded it See my Antiteichisma But if you intend it of all rationalls sensitives vegetatives insects mineralls all whatsoever you bring in more then comes within the scope of the Apostles doctrine The Texts you urge for proofe were cited to the same and to as little purpose before Sect. 3. Where I declared that the Hebrew word at Isa 45.23 and the Greeke at Rom. 14.11 Phil. 2.10 for bowing are not in these Texts And my Answer is that if in your citations an universall subjection be expressed in the three paralell places a speciall duty is injoyned I said that if for I question your sense very much of Heb. 1.2 Because Saint Chrysostome Chrysost in Heb. 1.2 interprets 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all Nations But be it as you will you are answered till it is proved that bowing at Phil. 2.10 is not a signe of our reasonable submission Your method is distorted for you have brought the rest to the Major which might have beene an anticipation at the Minor Thither I goe and there is amphibolia in the subject You mind the bare Name and we according to the Text the Name of Iesus In this sense all reasonable creatures and they onely shall performe it The objection you make is answered in my Antiteich Tract 5. pag. 47. 48. Tract 6. pag. 58. But you have in the supply of your Major proposition saved the labour You say in our behalfe and to make way for a reply that every one is bound to doe it though everyone shall not doe it I thanke you Sir and now give me leave to doe something per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I will for

you To the Minor I answer if you understand by creatures all sorts in the Creation it is not required But if you mind rationall creatures onely it is answered before that if it be not begun it ought to be and you confesse it is by some Hitherto your great labour hath thrived ill Faber in cìppo sedet quem sua manu fecit SECTION IX WHatsoever exposition of a Text will inferre an inequality of worship betweene the three Persons of the Trinity is false But so to expound the Text as before mentioned will inferre an inequality of worship betweene the three Persons of the Trinity Ergo. It is a false Exposition The Major is plaine because the three Persons being co-aquall ought to have a co-equall worship agreeable to John 5.23 Every one must honour the Sonne as they honour the Father The Minor is plaine for they by their exposition of the said Text Phil. 2.9.10 doe inferre a bowing at one of the Titles of the Sonne which they doe not practise at the Titles of any other Person Answer The Minor is false Bowing at the Name of Iesus doth not infer an inequality of worship In your proofe you goe fallaciously to work Not distinguishing the Name and the relations or not minding one essentiall Name of the three you insinuate that the bowing at the Name of Iesus makes the Son more honourable then the Father If it were the Name of the relation we bowed at there might be some ground for you yet if you would learne to consider the dispensation not much Know then that one God is the Trinity and that this S. Trinity which is one God nec recedit a numero nec capitur numero neither recedes from nor is contained by number Not from number because the Persons are ad invicem and in that they are in se they are without number So one essentiall Name pertaines to this Holy Trinity which cannot be plurall to the three Persons This is the determination of the Councell of Toledo Concil Tolet. 11. The answer given to this reason is twofold First they affirme that they worship all alike in Spirit and Truth and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 translated even as in Iohn 5.23 doth intend onely a truenesse of worship not every way an equall correspondency I reply that the Persons being equall must have an equall worship and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be there taken for the selfesame worship in likenesse and kind because praise and glory and honour is due to God Rom. 11. last If to God then to every Person in Trinity because every Person i● God We are to serve God with our bodies as well as with our soules outward honour is true honour as well as that which is inward If then all honour both outward and inward be to be done to God not any honour must be performed to one Person that must not be performed to another therefore if we be bound to honour the Sonne by bowing at his Name wee are also bound to honour the Father by bowing to his but if we bee not bound so to honour the Father neither are we so bound to honour the Son For the exposition of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even as in Iohn 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inquam i. e. pari eodem planè honore qu● omnes patrem honorant paulo ante Quibus aequalis imo modis omnibus idem debetur honor Zanchius de tribu● Elohim parte priore l. 4. c 2. p. 93● Zanchius saith thus Even as they honour the Father that is I say saith he with the like selfe same honour plainly wherewith all honour the Father and a little before to whom saith he an equall yea every way the selfe same honor is due Answer See now whether the answer which I made when you propounded the question first to me though suddenly given doe and and ever will stand right or no This it was The Sonne ought to be honoured 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Father that is with one and the same worship as truly and perfectly as the Father is and this I told you was Orthodoxe Said I more or said I lesse Your reply was then that you would write your mind and so after three yeares studdy in the question you have What ere it is a Monster it that was so long in hatching It seemes beautifull in the face Horat. de or poet Sed turpiter atrum desinit in piscem You confesse that the Persons being equall must have an equall worship and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must be there taken for the selfe same worship outward and inward Because every Person is God Whence you infer if we be bound to honour the Sonne at his Name we are also bound to honour the Father by bowing to his If not the one then not the other For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is with the selfe same honour plainly Here is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you have changed the principle and are gone from the Name to the relation The question is not whether wee are bound to bow at the Name of the Son that is when the Son is named or at the Name of the Father that is when the Father is named We may doe all if we please for not being expressely commanded t is no where forbidden But the question is whether bowing at the Name of Iesus the Persons be equally honoured or no You cannot prove they are not I le shew you how they are Compared ad invicem they are three in se one The essentiall Name being not plurall to the three is one and the same to every one and all Our worship then of any one makes no inequalitie among the three which are so one in themselves that one cannot be another save in relation one to another For he that honours the Son honours the Father and who honours not the Son honours not the Father as in the same verse Ioh. 5.23 and 12.45.46 You have therefore slandered us here egregiously in affirming with impudencie and non-sense enough that we intend by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a truenesse of worship not every way an equall correspondencie I tell you once more and remember it alwayes That our not bowing at the Name of the Father nor at the Name of the Sonne nor at the Name of the Holy-Ghost but at the Name of Iesus shewes that they being three one to another are but one in themselves and that our Salvation was wrought equally by them three though terminated onely in the Sonne See my Antiteich Tract 9. p. 93. Secondly They answer that they doe not put a difference betweene the Three Persons for by bowing at the Name Iesus they worship all the three Persons in one because they cannot be divided I reply Though they cannot be divided yet they may be distinguished and that in their worship too else that place of Iohn were to no purpose S.

was constrained unto it I will suppose no man was so mad as to contemne it And suppose Ministers suspended for other Ceremonies were never questioned for this I will againe suppose they were not complained of All then you say doth no more make it not a duty of the Text or accuse the Church of hypocrisie then your not administring the Lords Supper but as and when you please doth One particular destroyes not the generall Nor doth the not punishing every neglect of a duty make it lesse a dutie It may often happen as now it doth that the Church hath little or no power to punish But had she power and were not the Canons within the Church-wardens inquirie Did they or any other ever Present the default and it passed without blame Bishops though they be eminent inspectors are not Omniscient If the offenders be not made knowne whom shall they correct The Scriptures hath prescribed this Non sit dubitandum Aug. Epist 110. ad Ianu. quin ita facere debeamus No doubt we ought so to doe The Church therefore questions not every neglect before she finds the contempt And the lesse because she holds it a part insolentissimae insaniae of most insolent madnesse to dispute Gods command SECTION XVIII LAst of all I may bring this as a reason against them the most of them and some also of the chiefest of them that ground it on the Text yet hold their opinion very uncertainly they passe to and fro betwixt the Text and the Canon When they thinke that the Authority of the Canon is not altogether sufficient to make the people to practise it they flee to the Text when they are afraid that the Text will not beare it they flee to the Canon And if this be not halting betweene two opinions for my part I know not what is I will instance but in one Master Page in his Treatise of Iustification of bowing at the Name Iesus doth confesse that when he first went about that Treatise he did not thinke that it could be so directly proved from the Text a plaine evidence that he went about it doubtfully for he was to encounter with an Antagonist that held it no dutie of the Text and would he goe about to contradict him when himselfe was fearefull that the Text would not beare it but he affirmes that when he had read Bishop Andrewes on Phil. 2 he could not but condescend to his * Page Iustification bowing P. 4. opinion yea though he brings many Arguments such as they are to prove it a dutie yet thus he closeth with his Antagonist Though I am not so peremptory saith he that it is a duty of the Text as you are it is not Neverthelesse if the Text faile me I will ground it upon the Authority of the Church Answer Whom you here meane I know not some and some of the chiefest they are and in their opinions uncertaine they Because what you thinke you say and care not what Sir if you will understand what I feare you studie to contemne this Orthodoxe truth you must goe from the Text to the Canon and from the Canon to the Text. Thus if you will from the Text to the Canon as to the Hypereticall or Ministeriall Diction of the Sentence and then from the Canon to the Text to examine it by the Decisive of the Scripture This course I first tooke and the Scripture hath so determined it in my Conscience as I write Consider once more the Text and the Canon and this Ceremonie is a Divine dutie and a Humane As commanded in Scripture it is a Ceremoniall dutie Divine or of the Text Iustifi of bowing P. 8. saith Doctor Page and as commanded by the Church it is also a Ceremoniall dutie Humane or of the Canon Who then aske how I am sure that this is the Truth Answer is the Church hath so expounded it If demand be how is this Opinion of the Church discerned Answer is by the Letter of the Text and in the analogie of the Truth Nor is this all I am bound by the Text and by the Church if I will not observe the Text God will punish me for disobeying the Church also And this we finde in the Scriptures he doth more grievously then sinnes immediately committed against himselfe So to looke we ought unto the Text and to the Canon And if this be halting betweene two opinions you must halt in many things or be very ignorant and because you will not be stayed by the Church in any thing you stumble often as you goe And now are fallen heavie on Doctor Page whom a good man having blessed God for him will honour for his worth and thanke for his paines Ambros sup beati immacul Ordinis ignorantia conturbat negotiorum naturam formamque meritorum and you have done what thereby you could to crack his credit which still encreaseth by your contempt You note him for halting where his judgement is most sound I 'le expresse his words because you have chopped them to spoyle his sense I must confesse saith he that when I first entred upon this businesse I thought it could not be so directly proved out of the Text. But when I had perused that Learned and judicious Prelate Bishop Andrewes upon these words who conquers where he goes c. I could not but condescend to his opinion Not that I am so peremptorie it is a dutie of the Text as you are that it is not but I am perswaded now that it may be very probably defended even out of the Text. Wherein notwithstanding if I faile the Cause in hand is no whit prejudiced being principally defended upon the Churches Authoritie But for ought I perceive yet you must bring better Reasons then any you yet alledged before you perswade me that it is no dutie of the Text. What see you here save a modest and free confession of his first thoughts His care and course not to erre his submission to the Authoritie of the Church and his confidence even at the sundry insults of his Adversarie that it is a dutie of the Text. Hee doubteth hee searcheth hee findes hee stands to it Here is no despising of Prophesying but an examining of all things a holding fast that which is good and this is Apostolicall 1. Thess 5.20.21 Will you be remembred now The time was when you held it lawfull to be done and since writ to me that it was an indifferent Ceremonie But now in this great Loose you have preached it Damnable Superstition Damnable you will have it Is not this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 worse th●n doubting even fraudulent and base playing on both sides Carpere vel noli nostra vel ede tua Yea throughout the whole Treatise he is content with any testimonie or proofe from any Authour that may give the least signification that it is but a thing indifferent yea which is to be noted that those Authours that are evidently against him