Selected quad for the lemma: word_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
word_n	holy_a	spirit_n	trinity_n	2,812	5	9.9722	5	false

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

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.

the duty of the Text shall not be fulfilled Againe It is very absurd to affirme that our worship will teach to the Name but not to the Person of Christ for shall veneration and honour reach to a bare Name as it is sounded out by the breath of man who is lesse than nothing Isa 40.17 And can no worship reach to the Person who besides that he is in the glory of the Father in the heavens as man also is every where present by his infinite Deity and especially present in and among his Saints by his Spirit Answer The Reverend and learned Bishop Andrewet is the late furtherer if you please no late Father of the corporall bowing at the Name of Iesus He gives a reason why at the Name because his Person is out of our sight that we respecting his Name might shew our high esteeme of him Doth it therefore follow that when Christ appeares he shall be without a Name or his Name not acknowledged his By the same argument all his Attributes of chiefe Glory shall be taken from him You found the same inconsequence in it or else would have prosecuted it as you use where a Sophister may hide himselfe Another you have and this is it If the Bishops reason be good then Christ shall send out his Name at that Day to be bowed at and not come himselfe in person or if he come in person he must leave his Name behind him What Chymicall non-sense is here More worthy of the hisse then a Pen. He shall neither send his Name from himselfe nor come himselfe without his Name Hee calls himselfe by that Name now he is in glory Act. 9.5 Rev. 22.16 and with that Name will come in judgement For the Day is the revelation of the Lord Iesus 2 Thess 1.7 In your third absurditie you abuse the Reverend Bishops phrase applying the word reach to worship which he applyeth to the sight And the answer is Christs person is out of the reach of our sight not out of the reach of our worship M. T. Cic. pro L. Cor What advantage you have of the Learned I pray hold Est huius seculi labes quaedam macula virtuti invidere and it is your infirmitie or deformitie to envie his worth Names be signes and a kind of Images of things or Persons represented by them An Idolater bewes to an Image which he doth see because hee deemes that it represents unto him the Person whom he adores which he cannot see whereas if the Person were present befo●e him he would never bow to the Image The Name Iesus is as it were the signe or Image of our Saviour it would be therefore worse than Idolatry it selfe to bow to Christs Image before his owne face Answer Names are metaphoricall Images not materiall Being forbidden to worship God in the likenesse of any creature by the Second Commandement we are commanded to honour him in his Name at the third I know not what Idolaters would doe if the Person were in presence of the Image but sure I am your argument is prophane viz. Idolaters would not bow to the Image if the Person were in presence therefore t is worse then Idolatry it selfe to bow at and confesse the Name of Iesus before his face Had you spoken thus of Jehovah before a Jew he would have throwne a stone in your face If any shall yet infer that though all other Scriptures say nothing for the bowing at the Name Iesus at the Iudgement day yet it is enough that it be specified in one Text as viz. in this present Text of Phil. 2 9.10 I answer it is utterly against reason to imagine that if bowing at the Name Iesus were to be done at the Iudgement day that the holy Ghost would omit to specifie it in so many cleere places treating of the Iudgement day and would set it down in an obscure Text that treats not plainly of the Iudgment day but as it must be enlightened by other cleere Scriptures and that in such words and phrases that are different in sense to all those words and phrases in other Scriptures though often therein used Oh! It highly concernes us in season to provide Oyle in our Lamps that wee may meet Christ with comfort at that great day and not to be like children as Bishop Babington B. Babing in his Workes pag. 246. well notes playing with letters and syllables and adoring Titles with that honour which is due to the Person I● is Sathans policy to exercise men with trifles that he may steale away their hearts from that which is necessary as wofull experience proves too true in such as are addicted to this will-worship Answer What 's here was before at first and there answered The Holy Ghost as it pleased him expressed the duty in this Text and so that he who hath a will may run and read What need of cleerer places when none can be more plaine Plaine in the letter and the letter sure in the analogy no way dissonant firmely grounded on the fudamentall truth Oh! It highly concernes you who have spread abroad your Papers in defiance of the Church and against the plaine Text It concernes you to search into your selfe Oh search and what by weeping you cannot doe by publike recantation undoe what you can It is treason to clip the Kings Coine and is it a light matter to alter Gods At the Name of Iesus you have hitherto read at the Name Iesus and like one of the children tha● Bishop Babington notes playd with the word till you ha●e lost the sense To this I will subjoyne two other Arguments Whatsoever bowing is required by the Text shall not be fully perfected till the day of Iudgement But bowing at the Name Iesus may be fully perfected before for many can now make a perfect low curtesie at the sound of that Name even almost to the ground Ergo Bowing at the Name Iesus is not required by the Text * The bowing which the Saints shall performe at the Day of Iudgement is their perfection for then the image of God shall be perfectly restored to them Hence it will follow that if bowing at the Name Iesus be that bowing seeing the Saints in this life must strive toward perfection that all their striving must be how to make the fairest Cursies at the Name Iesus Whatsoever bowing is required in the Text is alreadie begun by every creature as I have proved before But corporall bowing at the Name Iesus is not practised in the least degree by the most of the creatures Ergo This bowing is not required in the Text. Answer In the first omitting the amphibolia the Minor is false The same was at thirdly before and there answered The Marginall note is a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter and being added to your conclusion makes the fallacie there plurium interrogationum also In the second the Major is false and not yet proved true nor will be by