Uniformity in humane doctrinall ceremonies ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40. or, a reply unto Dr. Hammonds vindication of his grounds of uniformity from the 1 Cor. 14.40. By Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods word at Chedzoy:

Uniformity in Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies un∣grounded on 1 Cor. 14.40.

Dr. HAMMOND.

1 Cor. 14.40.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Decently, and according to appointment.

1. SInce the publishing that Answer to Mr. J. concerning the degrees of ardency in Christs Prayer, I am advertised of another passage in that volume, in which I am concerned, relating to some words of mine in the view of the Directory, pag. 19. on the head of Uniformity in Gods Service, and particular∣ly respecting my rendring of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

2. These indeed I thus rendred [decently and according to order or appointment] and affirmed the importance of that place to be, that all be done in the Church according to Custome and appointment, rendring this reason of the former, because it was implyed in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, decently (custome being the onely rule of decency, &c.) and of the latter, because the words do literally import this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. according to order or appointment.

3. To the former of these he makes his first exception, thus, [he dares not affirme that this is the immediate sense of the place, but onely that it is implyed; it cannot be denyed, but that decency doth imply such customes, the omission of which doth necessarily infer indecency; but that the omission of such Ceremonies as ours, doth infer indecency, the Doctor and all his party can never make good: What undecencie can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of Baptism without the Crosse; as also in publique Prayers and Preaching without a Surplice? But of this see farther in Ames in the places but now quoted: The Doctor may perhaps look upon him as an inconsiderable adversary. But we shall think his Arguments considerable; untill the Doctor, or some other of his party give a satisfactory answer unto them. In the mean while let us examine the proof that the Doctor brings for this sense: and it is because custome is the onely rule of decency.

This Proposition, though very strange, is prooflesse; and therefore we might as well reject it, as the Doctor dictates it. But I shall adde a confutation of it, from these follow∣ing arguments.

1. If custome be the only rule of decency, then nothing else can be a rule thereof

besides customes, but this is false; for the light and law of Nature, is also a rule there∣of, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that infallible.

2. Nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto the onely rule of decency but divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custome; and this is so evident, as that I will not so much undervalue the Doctors judgement, as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent; but yet it is very possible that many customes should be undecent, and therefore I shall conclude, that custome is not the only rule of decency.

3. Lastly, unto custome, as you may see in both Aristotle and Aquinas, the frequent usage of a thing is required. But now there may be decency or handsomnesse in the first usage of a thing; and of this decency custome is not the rule, and therefore it is not the only rule of decency.

4. The first thing here charged on me, is timidity, that I dare not say what I said not, and this attended with a concession (in a limited sense) of the truth of what I did say; the second is the impertinence or unsufficiency of that, in that limited sense, to prove what he conceives I would have from it, viz. that the omission of our ceremonies doth inferre indecency: And the proof of this charge twofold, 1. by way of question, founded in two instances, the Crosse in Baptism, and the Surplice in publique Prayer, and Preaching: 2. By reference to Ames, and resolving to think his arguments considerable, till a satisfactory answer be given them. And his third charge, is my using an unsufficient proof to prove my interpretation, viz. this, [because custome is the onely rule of decency] which he confutes by three arguments.

These three charges I shall now very breifly examine, and, if I mistake not, clearly evacuate. The first by assuring him, 1. that I did dare to say, and indeed said (as I then thought perspicuously) the full of what I meant; but that it was no way incum∣bent on me, to say either what I did not mean, or what Mr. J. or any other should be justly able to charge of want of truth in the least degree. And 2. if what I said cannot, as he confesses, be denied, to have truth in it in one sense, I demand why must it be a not daring (which is wont to signifie timidity or cowardise) that I affirmed it not in another sense, wherein he doth not consent to it.

Jeanes.

The not daring of a thing proceeds from, not only timidity, but also from conscience and shame: When we say of men in controversal writings, that they dare not affirm such and such errours, we do not reproach them with cowar∣dise, unlesse he be a coward that is afraid, or ashamed to deliver an untruth. That according unto custome is the immediate sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is a very gross & evident falshood; & when I said that you dared not to affirm it, my mean∣ing plainly was, that your conscience or shame kept you from such an affirma∣tion, and what wrong I have herein done you I am yet to seek.

If you demand why I say that, you dare not say what you said not?

I answer, I have two reasons for it:

1. In entrance into this dispute, I did, as is usual in Controversies, premise what I took for uncontroverted on both sides. 1. for your part, I thought you would not deny, but that the immediate sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 was not accor∣ding unto custome; and then, I propounded for my owne part what I granted.

2. Though in Charity I judge, that you dare not say, that according unto cu∣stome,

is the immediate sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, yet I must needs tell you, that by your opinion it is incumbent upon you to say as much, and that I thus prove: You say that according to custome is the importance of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the a∣dequate and full importance of it, for that you should so trifle, as to say, that you meant, it is onely the partiall, and inadequate importance of it, I will not so much as imagine: But now, if it be not the expresse, and immediate sense of the word, but onely implyed therein, as drawn there-from, as a sequele or inference; by way of deduction or consequence, it may onely be a part or peice of the importance ther∣of: to prove then, that 'tis the full and adequate importance of the word, you must make good, that it is the immediate sense of it.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 6.

To make short, and prevent all possibilitie of his, or any mans farther mistaking my words, I shall hasten to tell him the full of my meaning in that passage, that (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decently) implies (according to custome) viz. that in such things as these, of which then I spake, gestures, habits, and the like circumstances of Gods publique ser∣vice, wherein the Apostle prescribes care of decency, 'tis necessary to observe the custom, of the place wherein we live.

Jeanes.

1. The customes of some places in gestures, habits, and the like circum∣stances of Gods worship are very undecent, and it is not necessary to observe such customes: But you will perhaps say, that you except undecent customs, and then you are to be understood onely of decent customes; for every cu∣stome is decent or undecent: because decency and undecency are privatively opposed, and interprivativè opposita non datur medium in subjecto capaci, between privative opposites there is no middle either of abnegation or participation in a ca∣pable subject: The result and upshot then of your meaning is, that, decently implyes, according unto decent customes; and then

1. The full of your meaning is but a trifling speech, that proves nothing in the Controversie, unlesse you also prove the Ceremonies controverted, to be so decent, as that the omission of them will be undecent in the service of God.

2. I would fain know, how you will suit unto it the proof of it: Custome is the onely rule of decency, for there too, by custome you understand that which is decent, so that your argument runs thus: decent custome is the onely rule of decency; therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decently, implyeth decent customs. And this argument most of your learned Readers will (to borrow your words concerning a saying of mine) despise under the appearance of a tautologie.

2. If the full of your meaning in that passage, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decently, im∣plyes according to custome, be, that in such things as these, of which then you spake, gestures, habits and the like circumstances of Gods publique service, &c. it is necessary to observe the customes of the place wherein wee live, why then I must be bold to tel you, that the full of your meaning is very short of the meaning of the Apostle; for these words of the Apostle, let all things be done decently 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prohibits al undecency, not only that undecency against the custom of the place wherin we live, but also that undecency which is against the dictates of the Law of Nature. By this the Reader may see, how defective your exposition is: the Apostle saith, let all things be done decently, and your glosse is, let some things in Gods worship be

done according unto some customes, to wit, such as are decent.

3. I suppose that by gestures, habits, and the like circumstances in the ser∣vice of God, you mean such of them as are Symbolical ceremonies; for other∣wise your full meaning is nothing unto the purpose, because it will be no ground for that uniformity you plead for. Now that the Apostles words, let all things be done decently implyeth, that in humane Symbolical ceremonies it is necessary that we observe the customes of the place wherein we live, is a thing which I utterly deny, and shall be constant in such denyal, untill you drive me from it by some convincing argument; and that I do not do this out of stomack, will appear by the reason that I shall alledge: The words of the Apostle, let all things be done decently, are not disobeyed, unlesse there be some undecency committed in the worship and service of God; for decency and unde∣cency are privatively opposite, and therefore there is decency in those actions where there is no undecency; but now by the omission of Symbolical ceremonies of humane institution, such as the Crosse in Baptism, Surplice in Prayer and Preaching, which can plead custome of the present place we live in, there is committed no undecency in the worship and service of God, viz. in Baptism, in Preaching and Praying, as will be apparent unto any man that will attempt to prove syllogistically the contrary; therefore the Apostles precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Symbolical ceremonies, and consequently the Apostles precept doth not in any way imply such Cere∣monies.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 6.

This I then thought sufficiently explicated by exemplifying in mens wearing long hair, which the Apostle proved indecent by its being against 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. saith Suidas, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a custome of some continuance in that place (which yet in women there, and men in other places, where that custome prevailed not, had nothing indecent in it.)

Jeanes.

1. This conceit that you have out of Suidas, Salmasius de C••ma disputes a∣gainst; but his argument satisfyeth me not, and therefore I shall wave all that he saies, and confine my self unto the very words of the Apostle for disproof of your sense of them, and my reason is taken from the joyning of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; for suppose that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Nature, may sometimes signifie custome, yet that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nature it self should signifie custome, is very improper.

2. Womens wearing of long hair is no religious mystical ceremony, but used out of Gods worship and service, as well as in, and therefore a most imperti∣nent exemplification of that which you plead for, Ʋniformity in religious mysti∣cal Ceremonies, that are proper and peculiar unto the special and solemn worship of God.

I readily grant, that in some places, custome hath made the long hair of wo∣men one badge of distinction between them and men; but being by custome made such a badge, nature it self dictates the observation of it; and if a man wear such long hair as women; he sins against the law of nature, if not im∣mediately and proximè, yet mediately ex interventu rationabilis consuetudinis.

As impertinent is your second exemplification, if Chrysostomes and others ex∣position

may have place; for they refer [we have no such custome] unto the words immediately foregoing (and why we should goe farther for a coherence, I can see no reason) if any man seem to be contentious: So that the meaning of the Apostle is, we have no custome to be contentious: Now to be contentious, is a sin against the Moral Law, the Law of Nature, and therefore belongs not un∣to your discourse of Ceremonies.

Dr. Hammond. sect 7.

But this exemplification of my meaning he thought fit to conceale from the Reader, and supply that vacuity onely with an &c. yet reciting at length, to a word, what was immediately before, and after it. His design in so doing, I judge not, but shall endeavour to undeceive the Reader for the future, by farther enlarging on it.

Jeanes.

1. Womens wearing of long hair is no Symbolical ceremony, and therefore what you said of it was an impertinency, and no exemplification of your mean∣ing, and therefore I had no reason to take notice of it.

But 2. suppose it were an exemplification, yet unlesse it were also for confirmation of your conclusion; that custome is the onely rule of decency, I was no wise obliged to recite what you said herein; for I expresly told the Rea∣der, I would transcribe what was argumentative in your words; now what I left out was not argumentative; for from it, neither you, nor any man else can ever infer your now mentioned conclusion.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 8.

All people, I think, in the world, have some outward significations, and expressions of Reverence; but all have not the same, but according to Topical customes, some different, some contrary to others: We of this and all our neighbour nations expresse reverence by uncovering the head, the Turks doe the contrary. Again, among Christi∣ans, 'tis customary for men so to expresse their reverence, but for women, saith the Apo∣stle, it is not, but the contrary; and so it is still among us. Nay it was once among some Heathens (that worshipt Mercury) an act of the highest reverence, even of ado∣ration, to throw stones at their God; among others, to cut themselves with Lances, when they were a praying to him. And it can be no news to Mr. J. that these customes were not observed by other Countries; the Jews that threw stones at Christ, and the Daemoniack that cut himself with them, were neither of them interpretable to wor∣ship him.

Jeanes.

1. Unlesse you can prove, that there cannot be outward significations and expressions of reverence in Gods service, without humane Symbolical ceremo∣nies, all this your enlargement about the expressions of reverence will be to no purpose. We require reverence in all parts of Gods worship as well as you; but then we hold, that Gods worship may be performed reverently, and in a seemly manner, without mystical ceremonies of humane invention.

2. Kneeling in Prayer is an expression of the highest degree of Reverence, Adoration; and it hath a higher rule than Custome, viz. Scripture and the light of Nature: No Custome can render this Kneeling undecent; unlesse you will say those words of the Psalmist, Psal. 95.6, doe not oblige Christians: O come,

let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our maker.

3. There be some customary expressions of reverence, that are undeniably unjustifiable, and you cannot say that they are implyed in the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Thus for expression of reverence, 'tis a custome with Papists not to touch the bread with their hands, but to have it put into their mouths; and upon the like pretence of reverence, it is customary amongst them, for Lay-men to abstain from the Cup altogether.

Lastly, why you bring in the Heathens throwing of stones at Mercury in a way of worship, I cannot divine; for I cannot imagine, that you think it to be a decent way of worship, and if it be undecent, then it serveth nothing unto the exemplification of your meaning.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 9.

This therefore was no dark, but visible foundation of what I said; In assigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God, decency, saith the Apostle, was to be observed, the onely rule to judge of that, is, say I, to consider the Customes of that particular place, of which we consult. Where bewing the knee, or kneeling on the ground is customarily used as a token of reverence, where putting off, or keeping off the hat, there the choice of Ceremonies must be made with respect to those particular customes: Here 'tis evident, that I mean not the frequent usage of that ceremony, in opposition to a first usage of it, as Mr. J. is willing to mistake me, and found one of his arguments upon that mistake, but the standing-custome of the place, by which, as by an argument or evidence, such a ceremony is demonstrated to be a reverential respect, and so (for the service of God, to whom all reverence is due) decent in that place, though in nature or in the estimation of all other men, it be not so.

Jeanes.

1. If the Apostle had said, as you say, he saith, there ought to be no farther controversie about the lawfulnesse of humane ceremonies; but that clause [in assigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God, &c. ••is an Apocryphal ad∣dition of yours, without any colour from the Text it self, or from the cohe∣rence; and therefore all you build upon it is but fancy and fiction: That the A∣postles decency cannot be observed without assigning such Rites and Ceremonies as you dispute for, you may dictate and boldly affirm, but can never with all your learning solidly prove; and unlesse you can make proof hereof, you and your party have just reason to be ashamed of urging this place for ceremo∣nies, with such an unshaken confidence as you do.

2. Whereas you tell us, 'tis evident that you mean not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the frequent usage of that ceremony in opposition to the first usage of it: This evidence of your meaning you have not so much as attempted to prove; and if you shall for the future make such an attempt, it would, I am afraid, prove succesless. The cu∣stome of a thing (unlesse you can fasten upon it a sense or meaning never yet heard of) is opposed unto the first usage of that thing; for custome implyeth the frequent usage of a thing, and to say that the frequent usage of a thing is the first usage of it, is an evident repugnancy and an apparent contradiction, contradictio in adjecto oppositum in opposito, as they say. I am therefore much to seek for the sense and reason of that Antithesis you make in these words, I mean, not the frequent usage of that ceremony in opposition to a first usage of it, but the standing custome of the place, &c. for 'tis impossible that the standing custome

of the place in a ceremony, should be the first usage of that ceremony; where the mistake is let the Reader judge.

3. In that which followeth, there is nothing of argument, unlesse you can prove every ceremony, which can plead the standing custome of a place, to be a fitting and decent expression of that reverential respect, which is due unto God. Bishop Morton in his Book of the Institution of the Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, p. 80, 81. sheweth that the opinion of reverence, hath been the damme and nurse of manyfold superstitions; and after such demonstration he quotes a saying of Chrysostome upon Joh. 13.8. Let us therefore learne to honour and reverence Christ as he would, and not as we think fit.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

10. Certainly this is so evident in it self, and so undeniably the importance of my words, that there can be no need farther to inlarge on it, much lesse to examine the weight, or meaning of his concession, that it cannot be dented but that decency doth imply such customes, the omission of which necessarily inferres indecency]

11. This saying of his some Readers may look on with Reverence, as not readily comprehending the importance of it, others may chance to despise it under the appearance of a tautologie. But upon pondering, it will appear that the Author had a meaning in it; which he designed should bring in some advantage to his cause, and without which he was not likely to advance far, or succeed in it.

12. Some customes▪ we know there are, which are so highly decent, as that the omission of them necessarily infers indecency: But what are they? why such as the law of (at least lapst) nature prescribes, covering of nakednesse, and the like; of which 'tis evident a∣mong all that have not learnt of Carneades industriously to rase out all naturall measures of honest and dishonest, that the omission of them infers indecency, yea and necessarily in∣fers it, this sort of decency being naturall to all men that ever were, or shall be in the world, born and educated in what nation, or inured to what custome soever, and this the very first hour after our first Parents fall, before any custome had been contracted which might recommend it to them.

13. And as of these his rule is true, that the omission of these necessarily inferrs undecency, so it is in a manner proper to these, and belongs not to any other sort of things▪ whose decencie flowes but from some positive command though it be of God, or custome, or command of men. To such things whose decency flowes from any com∣mand either of God or man, this rule cannot be fully applyed; for that command might have been not given, or there might be a space before it was given, or a peo∣ple to whom it was not given, and then in any of those cases the omission would not be indecent, to whom the law was not given; and so it doth not necessarily and abso∣lutely, but onely dependently on the law, and conditionally, inferre indecency; so in like manner the rule holds not in those things, whose decency is introduced onely by custome, for that Mr. J. truly saith, arising from frequency of actions, it must againe bee granted, that there was a time when that which now is custome, was new, and so not custome; and againe, there are, or may bee Nations, with whom that custome (whatsoever can be instanced in) hath not prevailed, which prejudges still the necessity spoken of, that such omission should inferre inde∣cencie.

And so we see the Jumme of Mr. J. his liberal concession, viz. that decency implyes

naturall decency, or such customes, which are naturally decent, and so the omission of them naturally indecent; and if the Doctor or his party do not prove, or make good, that the administration of Baptism without the Crosse is against the law of nature, that the Preaching without the Surplice beares analogie to the disclosing of nakednesse, he is utterly refuted by Mr. J. in his interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or notion of de∣cency.

Jeanes.

1. That I had no design in putting in the word necessarily, is evident by my leaving it out in the next words; but that the omission of such ceremonies as ours doth inferre undecency, the Doctor and all his party can never make good. You shall have my good leave instead of necessarily to place truly, or convincingly. Vo∣ciferations I have heard many against the undecency of Gods worship and ser∣vice amongst Presbyterians, and when I have called for proof, I have been told, amongst o••her things, that they Baptised without the Crosse, that they put up prayers unto God without a Surplice; but that God is undecently worshipped, where such toyes as these are omitted, you may stoutly affirme, but can never prove, by so much as one convictive argument: the word necessarily may then very well be inserted, in opposition to the groundlesse surmises of the ignorant, and prooflesse dictates of some learned men. Ignorant men may surmise, and lear∣ned men may dictate, that the omission of our ceremonies doth infer indecency, but this surmise and dictate can never be made good by argument.

2. In Logick, a necessary inference is opposed unto that which is fallacious, as also that which is but probable and contingent; and therefore I wonder why you should quarrell at the word necessarily? for doe you think in earnest, that decency implyes such customes, the omission of which doth sophistically, or at the best, onely probably inferre undecency, you cannot, I know, harbour so senslesse and irrational a thought, and therefore you must say as I doe, that decency here implyeth onely such customes, the omission of which, necessarily inferre undecency.

3. When you say that my rule is in a manner proper to those customs, which the Law, of at least, laps'd Nature prescribes, that limitation in a manner is a back∣door, out of which how farre you may run, I know not, and therefore untill you somewhere make a stand, I shall not run after you.

4. Whereas you fasten upon me this assertion, that decency here implyeth onely such customes which are naturally decent, viz. prescribed immediately by the Law of Nature, and so the omission of them naturally indecent, you have for this no colour, but that which you take from the word necessarily, and how weak a ground this is for such an imputation, you must needs confesse, when you remember what I now told you, that necessarily here is opposed unto fallaciously and probably. Dr. Ames himself in the dispute about humane cere∣monies, pag. 58. confesseth, that comelinesse, in the very place of the Apostle, containeth all naturall and civill handsomness; and in his Reply to Mortons ge∣neral Defence, &c. cap. 3. sect. 28. he acknowledgeth the womens vailes, 1 Cor. 11. to be an instance of this decency; for by the example of it, he concludes that other Churches may be directed so farre, just as the Apostles rule stretch∣eth, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done comely: when Bishop Morton desired to know whether this matter were not a thing indifferent? his answer is, it is indifferent in the general nature of it; yet at that time, and in that place, they sinned

that did otherwise, even before Paul, or any of their overseers gave them charge about it. By this his answer it is apparent, that he did not think it dictated by Nature unto the Corinthians, before any custome had recommended it unto them. As for my own part you shall have here my frank concession, that decency here implyeth even that decency which is introduced by civill custome, pro∣vided,

1. That it be, consuetudo rationabilis; * 1.1 for no other custome can have the force and authority of a law, and if you, or any other can bring any arguments, that it was confuetudo rationabilis which introduced our ceremonies, they shall have, God willing, an answer.

2. That the omission of it renders Gods worship undecent: the equity of this li∣mitation appeareth from this reason, because the Apostles command of decency is not violated but by undecency: This is at large set down in Ames his dispute about humane ceremonies, pag. 77, 78.

Lastly, your, and my learned friend Mr. Barlow, resolveth and proveth, Ex∣ercit. Metaph. p. 29. every morall evill, every evill of sin, to be against the law of Nature, if not proximè and immediatè, yet mediatè ex interventu legis positivae, now the undecency here prohibited by the Apostle is a morall evill, a sin, malum culpae, therefore 'tis at least mediately against the Law of Nature. Your great and learned Hooker, pag. 95. of his Ecclesiastical Politie saith, that this rule of the A∣postle is an edict of Nature, a Canon of that Law which is written in all mens hearts; the Church had for ever, no lesse then now, stood bound to observe it, whether the Apo∣stle had mentioned it or no. And hereupon I shall infer, that if you or your party doe not prove or make good, that the administration of Baptisme without the Crosse, that Preaching, Praying, without the Surplice, is against the Law of na∣ture, in some sense at least, mediately, he is utterly refuted by Mr. Hooker his inter∣pretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or notion of decency; and I doe not desire to live so long, as to see such a proof as this made.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 15.

This is indeed his meaning, which (though somewhat darkned in that his expression) will appear but consequent to the two things which he hath premised in this matter from Amesius his notion of decency. p. 64. in marg. 1. that decency requires not that any sacred things be instituted de novo, but onely that those things which are instituted by God, be used in that manner which is agreeable to the dignity of them. 2. That as order, so decency belongs to civil offices, as well as sacred things, in which indecorum est vitium oppositum debito illi modo, qui requiritur ad eorum justum finem, & usum consequendum, indecency is a vice opposed to that due manner which is required to the obtaining the just end, and use of those things. Now if in the former of these, the mode he speaks of, as agreeable to the dignity of those things which are instituted, be it self-supposed by him to be instituted by men, then must he acknowledge humane power of instituting ceremonies, which being so contrary to his design, I must resolve not to be intended by him; but rather, that as the sacred things are instituted by God, so the mode which is consentaneous to their dignity is instituted by God also, and that no∣thing is decent in sacris, which is not so instituted. And so likewise on the second head, that of civill offices. For that indecency, which is a vice or sin, must be contrary to some Law of Gods, and so also that which is opposed to the due manner which is required; and so is necessary either necessitate medii, or praecepti also to obtaining a just end, this sure is more than the omission of an indifferent custome, which may, or may not be conti∣nued

without any offence against nature, even the omission of strict universal duty, either natural decency, or somewhat that bears proportion with it.

Jeanes.

Both Ames and my poor self confess, that God hath by the Canon of the A∣postle, and by the light of Nature, appointed and commanded, that decency in his worship and service, the neglect whereof would be undecent; but that hee holds that there is need of a special divine institution to render a thing decent, is dis∣claimed by Ames in several places of his writings: Medul. Theol. lib. 2. c. 14. sect. 24, 25, 26. Hujusmodi igitur circumstantiae, quae suâ naturâ sunt civiles, aut com∣munes▪ non sunt particulariter in scripturis praeceptae, partim, quia in communem hominum sensum incurrunt; & partim, quia infra dignitatem & majestatem legis divinae ess••t, ut talia figilla••im in illa praescribantur, hâc etenim ratione ridieula multa fuissent singu∣lari lege cavenda: Exempli gratiâ, ne in ecclesiastico coetu unus in alterius sinu sese colocaret, in alterius faciem censpueret, aut ne popijmos faccret in sacris actionibus. Habendae tamen sunt tanquam ex voluntate Dei praeceptae. 1. Quia in genere praecipiun∣tur, sub lege ordinis, decori, & aedificationis. 2 Quia pleraeque earum necessario se∣quuntur ex iis quae à Deo sunt expressè constituta. Cum enim Deus constituit, ut fide∣les omnis generis convenirent, ad ipsius nomen & cultum celebrandum, consequentèr e∣tiam instituit, ut idoneum & commodum aliquem locum habeant, in quo possint conve∣nire. & horam etiam assignatam, qua simul p••ssint adesse; c••m etiam minister à Deo sit constitutus ad alios publice instituendos, simul etiam constituitur, ut sedem & situm cor∣poris illum habeat, qui tali actioni congruit.

25. Illa igitur quae pertinent ad ordinem & decorum, non ita relinquuntur hominum arbitrio; ut possint, quod ipsis libet, sub illo nomine Eccles••is obtrudere; sed partim de∣terminantur generali••us De•• praeceptis, partim natura ipsarum rerum, & partim circum∣stantiis illis, quae ex occasione sese offerunt.

26. Variae enim ord••is & decori circumstantiae tales sunt, ut nulla institutione pub∣lica accedente, debeant tamen à singulis observari, neque possunt ab hominibus prohiberi sine peccato.

24. Such like circumstances therefore, which of their own nature are civil or common, are not particularly commanded in the Scriptures, partly because they come into mens common sense, and partly because it would not stand with the dignity and majesty of the Law of God, that such things should be severally prescribed in it. For by this means many ridiculous things should have been provided for by a special Law; as for example, that in the Church assembly one should not place himself in anothers bosome, spit in anothers face, or should not make mouthes in holy actions: Yet they are to be accoun∣ted as commanded from God: 1. Because they are commanded in generall under the Law of Order, Decency, and Edification. 2. Because most of them doe necessarily follow from those things which are expresly appointed by God. For when God appointed that the faithfull of all sorts should meet to∣gether to celebrate his name, and worship, he did consequently ordaine that they should have a fit and convenient place, wherein they may meet together, and an hour also assigned at which they may be present together; when also there is a Minister appointed by God to teach others publiquely, it is withall appointed that he have a seat which is meet for such an action.

25. Those things therefore which pertain to order and decency, are not so left to mens wills, that they may under the name of that, obtrude what

they please upon the Churches: but they are partly determined by the general precepts of God, partly by the nature of the things themselves, and partly by those circumstances which doe offer themselves upon oc∣casion.

26.

For divers circumstances of order and decency are such, as though there be no publique institution of them, yet they ought to be observed of every one, neither can men forbid them without sin. Unto this adde another place in his f••esh suit against Ceremonies, disput. pag. 29. We never said, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency are punctually deter∣mined in the Scripture. We never dreamed, that all such rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, we speak of double, or treble rites as the Rejoinder stileth them, which no meer order and decency doth necessarily require, but onely the meer will of man injoyne.

That which is instituted by God in his worship, Ames knew very well to be a part of Gods worship; but that decency is no part of Gods worship, Ames in his disput. pag. 176. proves by a Reason quoted out of Dr. Abbot, Def of Mr. Perk. pag 844

Order and comeliness (saith the Popish Bishop) is some part of Gods worship. But (saith Dr. Abbot) who taught him this deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty or comelinesse of the body is a part of the body, order and comelinesse pro∣perly and immediately respect men, and therefore can be no parts of the worship of God.

To be instituted by God, if we speake strictly & properly, is to be injoyned by a divine positive Law superadded unto the law of nature; and in conformity hereunto it is that our Author Ames divides Gods worship, Med. lib. 2. cap. 5. into natural and instituted: Now if this be your meaning, when you impute unto Ames and me, that our opinion is, that nothing is decent in sacris, which is not instituted by God, as the charge is false in it self, so it proveth not that which you bring it for, viz. that in our sense decency in the Apostle, is only that decency which the law of nature prescribes; but confirmeth the clean con∣trary, because that which is instituted by a positive law superadded to the law of nature, is not prescribed proximè and immediatè by the law of nature.

You are by this time, I hope, conscious of the great injury you have done unto poor Dr. Ames, in affixing unto him so irrational an opinion, and hereupon I shall be bold to give you this advertisement, that however you may despise him as a mean Author, unworthy of your perusal, yet, if you undertake to censure and refute him, you must read him, or else you will be very lyable unto the breach of the ninth Commandement, Thou shalt not bear false witnesse against thy neighbbour.

But you will perhaps say in defence of your self, that if it were not the opi∣nion of Ames, it is the sequele of his words; and for this you have two reasons.

The 1. because the mode or manner agreeable unto the dignity of sacred things is instituted by God, as the sacred things are instituted by God: But this proposition, if it be particular, proves nothing, and if it be universal, is false, as you might have seen in the next reason of Ames, but that you cannot see wood for trees, as the Proverb is; There is a mode or manner in the use of sa∣cred things agreeable unto their dignitie, that is not adequate, proper, and peculiar to them, but common unto civill matters of a grave nature together with them; and this is a matter inculcated by Dr. Ames in many places,

which if you had weighed, you would never have troubled the Reader with this objection, Medul. Theol. lib. cap. 14. th: 23. Quamvis igitur hujusmodi cir∣cumstantiae vocari soleant à nonnullis ritus & ceremoniae▪ religiosae, aut ecclesiasticae, nihil tamen habent in sua natura, quod proprium est religionis, atque adeo in iis non propriè consistit cultus religiosus, quamvis ex eorum neglectu, & contemptu violatur a∣liquo modo sancti••as cultus religiosi; quia communis illa ratio ordinis & decori quae ae∣què convenit religiosis actibus, atque civilibus, à religioso cultu non potest separari, quin aliquo modo laedatur ipsius dignitas & majestas.

Although these circumstances of time, place, and other lïke, are wont by some to be called rites, or religious Ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet in their nature they have nothing that is proper to Religion, and therefore religious worship doth not properly consist in them, however by neglect and contempt of such circumstances, the sanctity of such re∣ligious worship is in some sort violated, because the common respect of order and decency, which do equally agree to religious and civil actions cannot bee severed from religious worship, without diminishing of the sanctity and digni∣ty of it.

Thus also largely in his Manuduction to the dispute about humane Ceremo∣nies, pag. 55, 56.

If men and women come purposely in their best apparel to Church, if they compose themselves to a grave posture, give the upper place to the chiefest persons, and take such to themselves as they may hear the Preacher in, and yet have no exception taken against them for it, if all the places and seats be made cleanly, and fit for a meeting, to be held in a comely fashion, all these are Ceremonies according to the Rejoinder his definition, yet no man but out of contention will affirm, they are meerly religious or ecclesiasticall: For all these in the same manner, and to the same immediate end, the same per∣sons would doe, if the meeting were to hear the Magistrate propound unto them a grave civil businesse, concerning the Commonwealth affairs. And sure∣ly that which remaining the same may be civil, is not meerly and properly ec∣clesiastical, but common to both uses, and rather meerly civil, than meerly ec∣clesiastical; because civility is supposed and included in ecclesiastical affairs, but ecclesiastical proceedings are not supposed and included in civil. Dr. Jackson in his original of unbelief, pag. 337. doth well observe, that decent behaviour doth change the subject onely, not alter its own nature and form, whilst it is used in matters sacred: nor is the habit of civil complement, or good man∣ners, such an unhallowed weed, as must be layd aside when wee come into the Sanctuary. And indeed there is no more reason to shut civility out of the Church or sacred businesse, than to shut Religion out of the Town-house, or civil affairs.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 15.

And so likewise on the second head that of civill offices, for that indecency which is a vice or sin must be contrary to some law of God, &c.

Jeanes.

Indecency in things civil, however it may be a vice in Ethicks against civility and good manners, yet it is not alwaies a sin in divinity contrary to some law of God: but undecency in things sacred in the worship and service of God, if it be voluntary and avoydable, is against the command of the Apostle, which is a rule of the law of nature, saith Hooker; and this I beleeve you will not deny in cold blood: and

indeed you have no reason to deny it; for it will not hereupon follow that the Apostle injoyneth onely that decency which is immediately prescribed by the Law of Nature, and my reason is, because as the Apostle, so the light of Nature injoyneth as that decency the neglect whereof would be undecent by the light of nature; so also that, the omission whereof would be uncomely by civi•••• cu∣stome, and therefore as undecency by the light of nature is against the light and Law of Nature immediately, so also undecency by civill custome is against the law of nature mediately. The long hair of women is one note by which custome hath distinguished them from men; and therefore 'tis undecent for men to wear such long hair as women, and this supposed, mens wearing of such long hair is a mediate transgression of the Law of nature; whereupon the Apostle propounds this smart interrogation unto the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.14 Doth not even nature it self teach you, that if a man have long hair, 'tis a shame to him? We may say the same of the long garments of women: doth not even nature teach you that if a man wear such garments it is a shame unto him, and very undecent, and yet the undecency thereof ariseth immediately from civil custome, and not from any immediate Law of Nature.

Dr. Hammond.

For that indecency, which is a vice, or sin must be contrary to some Law of Gods, and so also that which is opposed to the due manner which is required, and so is necessary either necessitate medii, or praecepti also, to obtain in a just end, this sure is more then the omission of an indifferent custome, which may, or may not be continued without any offence against nature, even the omission of strict universal duty, either naturall de∣cency, or somewhat that bears proportion with it.

Jeanes.

That decency in Gods worship and service, the neglect of which would be undecent, is necessary both necessitate med••i and praecepti.

1. Medii is required as a means unto the acceptable celebration of Gods worship, but then it is not a means proper and peculiar thereunto, for it hath the same immediate end both in civil and religious matters, and therefore is common unto both.

2. That it is necessary necessitate praecepti you cannot question, unlesse you will deny the title and obligation unto the Apostles injunction, for that it binds as an edict of nature we have the testimony of your own Hooker: if this twofold ne∣cessity of decency be chargeable with any absurdities, you are as deeply concer∣ned to answer them as my self: indeed that decency, from the omission where∣of we cannot inferre indecency is necessary, neither necessitate praecepti, nor medii.

But with such a decency we have nothing to doe; for it comes not within the compasse of the Apostolical command, and such is the decency of your ce∣remonies altogether unnecessary; neither commanded by any Law of God, nor necessary as a means for the better service of God. But perhaps you may attempt to prove, that God is better served with your Ceremonies, than without them; when I shall have such proof from you, I shall return it an answer.

In the mean while let us consider the absurdity with which you charge the assertion of the, but now mentioned, double necessity of decency in Gods wor∣ship: If that be necessary, necessitate praecepti, or medii, then undecency, say you,

which is opposed thereunto, is more than the omission of an indifferent custome, which may, or may not be continued without any offence against nature.

For answer, the undecency here prohibeted by the Apostle, is either by the light of nature, or by civil custome.

The former is more than the omission of an indifferent custome, and is an im∣mediate transgression against nature.

As for the latter, we must distinguish of a twofold consideration of such customes, they may be considered either actu signato in the generall, as abstracted from all singularizing circumstances, or actu exercito hic & nunc, as clothed with such and such circumstances, and so they are not indifferent but necessary necessitate both praecepti and medii. I might exemplifie this by instancing in the long hair, pro∣per apparel, viz. long garments of women, and the like. There is a passage in Ames, already quoted, that will be here very apposite; Bishop Morton had demanded of him whether the womens vailes, 1 Cor. 11. were not a thing in∣different, and his answer is, it is indifferent in the generall nature of it, yet at that time, and in that place, they sinned that did otherwise, even before Paul, or any of their Overseers gave them charge about it.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 16.

Now this being thus far explained, it is time to close with Mr: J. and mind him, what he cannot but know, that the decency which I said, implyed custome, is cer∣tainly another thing from natural decency, and hath place onely in those things, the o∣mitting of which doth not necessarily inferre indecency. That omission which necessarily infers indecency, infers it in all that ever did it, or shall omit it: We know in Lo∣gick that no proposition is necessary, which is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, true in the whole species of all, and every one, and I leave it to his judgement, whether he think the Dr. and his party (i.e. Prelatists, I suppose) doe conceive, that Adam, (whether in, or out of Paradise) Noah in, or out of the Ark, &c. were obliged to pray in Surplices under pain of indecency? And so (in his other instance) that John Baptist, that Christ, or (because the Text saith that he baptised not, but his Disciples) that those Disciples, euen before the death of Christ, might not baptise any without the sign of the Crosse, but under the same penalty?

Jeanes.

Natural decency is a branch, nay the principal branch of that decency comman∣ded by the Apostle, and therefore I could not think it excluded by you; but withal, I must conclude your interpretation of the Apostle, to be very imper∣fect and defective, when you said the clear importance of the Apostles words was, Let all things be done according to custome; I was so foolish to suppose that you meant this clear importance of the Apostles words, was also the full im∣portance of them, neither can you assign any reason, why I should think other∣wise.

But that, I see, which so much stumbleth you, is the word necessarily, concer∣ning which I hope you are satisfied by what I have already said, and therefore I shall only adde this one thing, that necessarily hath two acceptions.

1. In regard of an absolute necessity.

2. In respect of an Hypothetical necessity arising from some extrinsecal circumstance or condition. Now, I doe not restrain it unto either of these senses, but take it abstractively in such a latitude, as that 'tis appliable unto either of the significa∣tions

according unto the nature of the things spoken of: the omission of natural decency infers undecency necessarily, in regard of an absolute necessity; the omissi∣on of civil undecency, infers undecency necessarily onely ex Hypothesi: and that inference of indecency which is only necessary ex Hypothesi, is more than an infe∣rence thereof, which is fallacious, or at the most but probable; and if we speak of this necessity, it is very false which you say, that that omission which thus necessarily inferres undecency, inferres it in all that ever did, or shall omit it.

But you say that, we know in Logick, that no proposition is necessary, which is not de omni true in the whole species of all and every one.

Unto which I answer, that he who hath any tolerable knowledge in Logick, knoweth that what you say is to be limited onely unto that necessity which is sci∣entifical and demonstrative; for to say nothing of such propositions as are necessa∣ry onely hypothetically, there are divers propositions absolutely in themselves necessary, setting aside all outward circumstances and conditions, which are not yet de omni.

1. I shall instance in divers particular propositions, as, Quaedam substantia est spiritus: quo••dam corpus est mixtum.

2. In several negative propositions, as, nullus spiritus es•• corpus: nullus lapis est rationalis. Now these are necessary propositions, because of an immutable truth, and they are not de omni: For,

1. A particular proposition is not de omni, but de aliquo: And then 2. a ne∣gative proposition is not de omni; for de omni is opposed unto that which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 de nullo.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 17.

Nay, 'tis already past question, that Mr. J. in his first argument against my dictate (as he calls it) saith, that the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency, and so not onely custome: And if so, then custome is a rule of decency also, and not only the law and light of nature, and where custome, and not the light of nature is the rule, there the omission of that doth not necessarily inferre indecency. And of such decency a∣lone it is evident that I spake, on the head of Ʋniformity (and could not speak sense, if I spake, either of any other, or of the generall notion of decency, which is competible to any other) and from thence it follows demonstratively that of that decency of which I spake (though not of that, of which it is certain I spake not) still custome is the onely rule of decency.

This therefore I hope may serve in answer to his first charge, that of my timidity, that I dared not say what I said not; together with a view of his concession of the truth of what I did say, and the wary limitation of that concession.

Jeanes.

1. I called your assertion, viz. Custome is the onely rule of decencie, a dictate, and shall call it so still, untill you can prove it, and when you bring any solid proof of it, abstracted from your subterfuges, for limitations I cannot call them, I shall be contented to be your vassal.

2 You seem to intimate, that in the things you speak of, custome, and not the light of nature is the rule, but this is very false; for custome is mensura pas∣siva, as well as activa: When it is a rule of decency, it is first measured and re∣gulated

by the light of nature, and without such regulation it is no rule of de∣cency in any matter whatsoever; for custome hath not the force of a law nisi sit rationabilis, that is agreeable unto the dictate of right reason and the law of Nature; the law of Nature then is still the principal rule of decency, speake of what decency you will or can, and custome is but a rule subordinate thereunto, and to be examined thereby.

3. If you speak of such decency alone, the omission whereof doth not ne∣cessarily inferre undecency, in respect either of an absolute, or hypo••hetical ne∣cessity, you doe not speak of that decency which the Apostle commandeth; for that the Apostle should command such a decency, in the omission of which, men onely boldly affirm, or meerly opine there is undecency, and cannot make good such an affirmation or opinion, by any other than sophistical, or at the best, but probable arguments, me thinks should not sink into the head of any rational man.

Yea, but you say, that you could not speak sense, if you spake either of any other, or of the generall notion of decency which is competible to any o∣ther.

Suppose I grant this, what then? this argument is of little prevalency with me, who am in this particular your Antagonist; for though I acknowledge and admire your great parts and learning, yet I think it not onely possible, but pro∣bable for you, or any other, though never so great a scholar, to speake nonsence in opposition of the truth.

2. It is evident and certain that the Apostle spake of the general notion of decency, which is competible unto natural decency, and from thence it fol∣lows demonstratively, that if it be so certain, that you speak not of this de∣cency, it is as certaine that your glosse of the Apostles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is la••e and maimed; for it leaves out what is chiefly meant by it, but of this before.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 18.

Secondly, then to his second charge, the unsufficiency of that limited truth (which is the utmost he will yeild my proposition) to prove what I would have from it] It will soon appear of how little force it is, when 1. my meaning was quite another thing from what he affixt to my words, or yeilded me in his limited concession, as hath already been largely manifested, and 2. my conclusion is regularly consequent to that which was alone my meaning. This latter the addition of a few words will clear also.

Jeanes.

For answer unto this I shall referre unto what hath been said already.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 19.

My conclusion designed in that Section was the justifying of Ʋniformity of Ceremonies in the service of God, and one of the grounds to support that, the decency of those cere∣monies, wherein all should joyn, and that decency ruled, and judged of by the custom of the place in which such and such a ceremony was an usual indication, and expression of that reverence, which being due from all inferiours to their superiours, is much more due from all Christians to God.

Jeanes.

1. Humane ceremonies have two acceptions. 1. They are taken largely for all circumstances of order, decency; as also for all meere indicant signs of reverence, and these for distinction sake may be called circumstantial ceremonies: but these are not the ceremonies in question; for the Non-conformists acknowledge these law full, and so also Uniformity in them; but yet of these ceremonies, custome is neither the onely or principal rule, as shall be manifested when I come unto the examination of your Answer unto my Objections against this your dictate.

In a second place, humane ceremonies are taken strictly, onely for such as are doctrinal▪ symbolical, and sacramental, and unto such neither decency nor reverence obligeth us.

Not, first, the Apostles decency; because in the omission of them there is no undecency.

Not, secondly, that reverence which is due unto God in his worship, be∣cause in the omission of them there is no irreverence committed; you may think my notion of reverence to be too narrow; but 'tis the utmost I can grant you; and indeed 'tis all that Scripture and Reason call for: reverence and irre∣verence are privatively opposed, and between privative opposites, in a capable sub∣ject, there is no medium, either of abnegation or participation, and therefore when there is no irreverence in the external worship of God, that worship is reve∣rently administred: now that Baptisme is unreverently administred when the Crosse is omitted, or that publique Prayers and Preaching are unreverent, when the Surplice is left off, may perhaps be very affectionately averred by you and others, but I do not hope to live so long as to receive from you, or any man li∣ving, for it, so much as the shadow of an argument.

In the first place then you see that reverence bindeth not to humane, religious, mystical ceremonies.

Nay, in a second place, it bindeth to lay them quite aside, because Gods Or∣dinances are treated very irreverently, when mens inventions are joyned with them, when men set their thresholds by Gods thresholds, and their posts by his posts, Ezek. 43.8. that is, when humane inventions are added unto Gods pre∣cepts.

Yea, but you may perhaps say our Ceremonies are joyned with Gods Ordi∣nances onely as adjuncts, or annexaries, not as parts of Gods worship.

But unto this I reply in the words of Ames unto Morton, all external ceremonies, whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship, as all divinity sheweth. Reply unto gen. Def. pag 19.

Thirdly, the pretence of reverence in Gods worship, hath oftentimes been an inlet unto many superstitious practises; this Ames sheweth in his Reply unto Mortons particular Defence, &c pag. 69. Out of such conceits as this, saith he, all superstition hath crept into the Sacrament. For expression of reverence, some would not touch the bread with their hands, or the cup either, but have both bread and wine put into their mouthes. Some more agreeably to Courtly fashion (urged by the Defendant) where meat is taken with silver forks, instead of hands, devised a silver pipe to suck up the wine through. Some would not have bearded Lay-men taft of the wine at all: And many for m••ere reverence (as they say) will neither touch wine nor bread, abstaining altogether from the Sacrament. All these usages might have been, and may be cu∣stomary,

and yet custome cannot legitimate them and make them decent. I shall conclude all that I have to say unto these two last Sections with a remark∣able passage in Parker his Treatise of the ••rosse, part. 1. pag. 112.

The second office of the Crosse is to procure reverence to aptisme, nè putetur esse com∣munis ablutio: Which is the office of the Salt, the Taper, and the rest of Po∣pish signs, which how cut we off, but with this Ax that beheadeth the Crosse as wel. Non existimandum, &c. We must not think but that the Baptism of Christ, and of the Apostles was performed with reverence enough, when these signs were wanting; neither must we take upon us to be wiser than they. To pro∣cure right reverence to the Sacrament, is to lay open the institution by the Preaching of the Word, and then to deliver it in that simplicity in which we have received it. To adde signs over and above is not to honour it, but to de∣file it. Indeed the A••k had been more honourably intreated, if it had been sent home again as it came into the land and hand of the Philistines. They thought they could not honour it sufficiently, unlesse they set a budget by it of certain new devised signs to wait upon it, which did defile it. David emptyed this budget, and did wel: Howbeit, their Cart he thinketh cannot well be spared, for which the Lord made a breach in Israel, untill he drave him to confess that he was not sought in due order, as long as one Ceremony of the Philistines did remain. The Lord shew mercy to our Church, otherwise he will shew, that our emptying of the Popish budget, in banishing the salt, the oyl, the spittle, with the rest, will not be judged sufficient, unless we cease also with a Cross of theirs to cart Baptisme, which should be born up to reverence no other way than by the shoulders of the Levites, I mean the labours of those Preachers which now (alass) lye in the dust, because they wil not defile their hands by touching of this Philistim cart for to uphold it.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 20, 21.

In these it is certain, custome is the rule and the onely rule of decency: Neither na∣ture nor Gods Law obliges all mankind to this, or that expression freverence. Severall nations have their several manners of doing it; onely nature tels us, that the most re∣verent manner of treating is best becomming God, and that it cannot be decent, to treat God in that manner as we would not doe any Superiour beside, and Gods own expostula∣tion about the offering of polluted bread upon his Altar, and of sacrificing the lame and the sick, Mal. 1.8. is a confirmation of that; Offer it now, saith God, unto thy Go••er∣nour, will he be pleased with thee?

21. Apply this to a particular case, to a Nation, where 'tis customary to address to Kings kneeling, and there the Analogie will hold exactly (but not where that is not cu∣stome) Among such I may say, Did ever any man that had his limbs and health offer a Petition to his Prince in the gesture of sitting, or lying along upon a table? and if he did not, then I must, I suppose, regula••ly conclude from custome, the only rule of decency in such matters, that according to Gods arguing it cannot be decently done in his service, which is the tendring our petitions or requests to that infinite Majesty. And so proportio∣nably in other things.

Jeanes.

Your exemplification of the indications and expressions of that reverence of which custome is the only rule, by instancing in kneeling in prayer, when wee

tender our petitions or requests to the infinite majesty of God, is very imperti∣nent; for it is very evident, that custome is not the only rule of it, because it is sufficiently warranted both by Scripture and the light of Nature.

Unto all this I shall adde a distinction of reverence; it may be taken some∣times largely, and so it comprehends adoration: sometimes strictly, & so it is distin∣guished there from; for reverence, is due unto the Ordinances of God, adora∣tion, and worship onely unto God: custome may be a partial and subordinate rule of the signs of reverence, taken strictly, whereupon by custome, uncovering of the head is a general or common gesture of reverence, to be used with discretion in all religious exercises; but now as for the indications and expressions of a∣doration, I do think the Scripture a sufficient rule of them, where, I do not ex∣clude the law and light of nature, for materially considered, it is a part of Scripture.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 22.

This I did not apply to the Crosse in Baptism, and the Ministers using of the Surplice, as being not pertinent to that place. Another head was set apart for those, and proceeded to sect. 28. the Crosse expresly named, and the Surplice implyed under the title of other Ceremonies, of which it may there be seen, what my conclusion was, not what is here deem'd incumbent on me to prove, that the omission of them infers indecen••y, but that standing on th••se grounds, whereon they are known to stand, Conscience duly instructed, cannot think it necessary▪ or tending to edification to cast them ca••s••esly out of this Church, or the whole Liturgie for their sakes.

Jeanes.

What you said, was applyable unto the Crosse in Baptisme, and the Ministers using of the Surplice▪ for your conclusion was, the more then lawfulnesse of pre∣scription of ceremonies in a Church, and of Ʋniformity therein; and here sect. 19 you acknowledge that your conclusion, designed in that Section, was the justifying of Uniformity of Ceremonies in the service of God: now I had reason to think that you speak of humane, religious, mystical ceremonies, because such onely were opposed by the Non-conformists, and such the Crosse and Surplice were, eminently, though no•• exclusively.

2. If your design be to justifie doctrinal ceremonies from the Apostles com∣mand of decency, then 'tis incumbent on you to prove that the omission of such ceremonies doth infer undecency; for if it doth not infer undecency, then ther∣in there is no transgression of the Apostles precept, and if the Apostles precept be not transgressed by the omission of them, the Assembly had no cause, upon that account, to repent of their casting such ceremonies out of the Church of God.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 23, 24.

And yet if Mr. J. shall now desire to know what the grounds of these two Ecclesiasti∣cal rites are, which alone he is pleased to name, on perswasion, I suppose, that they were as fit, if not fitter than any others for the disproving my position, of (custome being the onely rule of decency) I shall now render him a brief account of them, such as may in some degree confirm the truth of it.

24. And first for the Crosse in Baptism. 1. 'Tis known to all, that our Christian course is a spirituall Warfare under Christ our great Generall: Now it is, and alwaies

hath been customary over the world, that in a militia there should be some Banner, or Ensign, to which every one should resort, and fight under it. This hath custome made decent among all; and supposing that custome, the omission of it in an Army is indecent, yet not so, as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature are in∣decent.

Jeanes.

1. As our Christian course is a spiritual warfare, so unto this the Ordinances of Christ Jesus are a more suitable Banner or Ensign, than any hu••ane invention whatsoever: But you think that the Banner requisite in our spiritual warfare must be of humane invention, not divine institution; for otherwise you speak nothing to the purpose; and if the omission of such a Banner or Ensign be un∣decent, you may arraign Christ and his Apostles as guilty of undency.

2. The signe of the Crosse hath been a long time used by Antichrist, as an En∣sign or Banner, and is it undecent to lay aside the Ensign or Banner of an e∣nemy?

3. How little weight there is in the customary use of a Banner for the decency of the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme, will be apparent by these following consi∣derations.

1. It is a custome in Armies for different companies or troupes to have Ban∣ners or Ensigns; but it was never the custome of any Armies for every severall souldier to carry a Banner or Ensign: from the custome of a Banner or Ensign then, how you can conclude for the signing of every singular Christian with the sign of the Crosse passeth my in agination.

2. The customary use of a Banner is in the whole war, and not onely at the first enrolement of Souldiers, and therefore if it prove any thing for the Sign of the Crosse, it will conclude for the frequent and constant use of it all the time of our warfare; and this I hope you will not plead for.

3. A permanent Crosse hath more proportion unto the Banners and Ensigns of Armies than the transient and aërial Crosse; and yet there be some of your party, who allow of the transient Crosse in Baptisme, that dislike permanent Crosses in Gods worship; because they think there is more danger of superstition in them: Now these men, in all probability, lay no great stresse upon this your resemblance of the sign of the Crosse to a Banner or Ensign, and my reason for this my conjecture (for I u••ge it onely as a conjecture) is, because they reject all permanent Crosses in Gods service, which doe more resemble a Banner or Ensign than a transient Cross.

4. I have done my best to sound the depth and strength of your argument, and if I be not deceived, thus it stands: The omission of a Banner or Ensign, in our spiritual warfare, that was used by the Primitive Christians, is undecent; but the sign of the Crosse in Baptism was thus used by the Primitive Chrisstians, there∣fore omission of it is undecent.

By Primitive Christians, I suppose you doe not mean the Apostles, or such A∣postolical persons as were guided by an infallible spirit, and then I deny your Ma∣jor, and for this my denial I shall give you two reasons.

1. In Christ our great Generall, the Captain of our salvation, were hidden all the treasures of wisdome and knowledge, and therefore he knew better what was de∣cent in his worship, than all Primitive Christians, han all the Fathers and Coun∣cils that ever were in the world; and therefore seeing there is such a deep si∣lence

of the Crosse in his word, I shall never think it so highly decent as you pretend, so decent, that the omission of it is undecent.

2. It is, and alwaies hath been customary over the world, at least in civil and wel-governed Nations, that in a Militia all should be done by Commission de∣rived from the General. Manlius put his own Son to death for fighting with an enemy, though he had the Conquest, because it was without order, and L. Papyrius Cursor had, for the same reason, executed Q. Fabius Rutilianus, though he had gained a great Victory over the Samnites, but that the general intercessi∣on of the people of Rome pacified him. But now our Prelatists can produce no Commission from our great General, to use any Banner or Ensign in his worship, but such as he hath already instituted, his Word, Sacraments, Discipline, and therefore I shall condemn the usage of any such Banner or Ensign, as a trans∣gression against his Military discipline. Af••er the writing of this, I found this your objection both propounded and ansvvered by S••ha••pius. Scharp. curs. theol. tom. 2. pag 39, 40

Ob. Milites debent habere signum militare, quo ab aliis distinguantur: At Christia∣ni omnes sunt milites, Eph 6 11. ergo & sig••••m h••bere debent, & per consequens sig∣num crucis.

Resp. Negando illud conseq quia habent alia signa, nempe internum signum fidei, ••x∣ternam confessionem, & participationem verbi & S••cramentorum, &c. What he speaks of external confession and participation of the Word and Sacraments, wil satis∣fie what you say.

I cannot here passe by a passage in Whitaker against Duraeus, pag 191, 192. in the Edition of his Works in Fol. Duraeus having cited many Fathers for the Ceremonies added unto Baptisme, Whitaker thus replyeth unto him: M••â vero non interest quid Clemens, quid Leo, quid Damasus, quid quisquam alius Pontifex ad Baptismi Sacramentum adjecerit. Christus ecclesiae nihil de istis ceremoniarum nugis mandavit, nec in illis ••rebris, quos in scriptura legimus, baptismis, ulla harum rerum mentio reperitur. Nam vero putemus recentiorem ecclesiam melius perspectum habuisse, quibus in Baptismo ceremoniis uti oporteret, quam Christum ejusque Apo∣stolos?

Before I proceed further, I shall take notice of the limitation that you have in the close of sect: 24. of your affection of undecency in the omission of a Banner in an Army: It is not so undecent, say you, as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature; Now if you apply this unto the omission of a Banner in our spiritual Militia, I thus object against it: The publique worship of God is a chief part of our spiritual warfa••e, and the command of decency in that is, saith your Hooker, an edict or Law of Nature, and whatsoever is therein undecent transgresseth against this Law: If the omission then therein of a Banner or Ensign of humane invention (for of such only you speak) be undecent, 'tis so undecent as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature are undecent.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 25, 26, 27, 28.

And the Crosse on which Christ was crucified, the Embleme also of that state that every Christian enters into, a constant, courageous patience for all afflictions, was by the Primitive Christians thus used, as their Symbol or Ensigne, and every man that is inrolled in the Christian Militia, is by him that inro••les him, signed with it; and this practise being thus founded, and revived in the Church, Saint Augustines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denyed to have truth in them: Sig∣num

crucis nisi adhibeatur, five frontibus eredentium, sive ipsi aquae quâ regenera mur &c. nihil ritè perficitur: Ʋnlesse the sign of the Crosse be used either to the foreheads of the beleevers (who are baptised) or to the water it self by which we are regene∣rate, it is not duly performed. i. e. with such ceremonies as by custome of the Church, the rule of decency, belong to it; and, crucis signo in fronte hodie tanquam in poste signandus es, omnesque Christiani signantur (de Catechiz. rud. cap. 20. tom. 4. p. 915.) thou must be signed now in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse, as the Israe∣lites on their door-posts, and so must all Christians. In the forehead particularly c 1.2 in fronte figat, ubi sedes pudoris, because the seat of shame is there, which we render, in token that the baptized shall not be ashamed.

26. The usage of this ceremony of signing with the Crosse, was, we also know, fre∣quent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in (d) 1.3 curing diseales, and casting out Devils, to that Atha∣nasius frequently offirms of it, (e) 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the sign of the Crosse all Magick, and Witcheraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waste and empty.

27. And then Baptisme being the exorcising of Devils (the ancient Catechists wee know were called Exorcists) the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into Gods Sonship and Family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly symbolical, than the use of this in Baptisme, according to that of Tertul. de Resurr. Carn. Caro fig∣natur, ut anima muniatur, the flesh or body is signed, that the soul may be defended or fortified?

28. And if instead of the (f) 1.5 frequent use of it among the ancients, even (g) 1.6 before the cumbersome weight of Ceremo∣nies came in, (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Ma••tyr, Qu. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. pag. 364. in time of prayer we sign those that are any way ill affected) we in our Church retain it onely in our solemne en∣trance into Christs•• camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his banner, and in confidence that he that thus signed to Constantine victory from Heaven (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this overcome) will thus give grace, and seal to us victory over our ghostly enemies: what question can there ever be of the perfect decency of this us••ge among us?

Jeanes.

Here you heap up many Testimonies of the Fathers for the Sign of the Cross, unto which it is no difficult matter to adde more, but you might very wel have spared all this labour; for first, it is not unknown unto you, how your Adver∣saries hold, that the Hyperbolical sayings of the Fathers, touching the Crosse, are no wales justifiable; hear what Bishop Morton quotes out of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy, pag. 237, 238. Sundry of the Fathers put holyness in the Sign of the Crosse, and wrote of it very superstitiously. Some telling us that it was a terrour against D••vils, attributed a power thereunto of working Miracles; What shall we say? but that the Crosse hath been as superstitiously abused by the Fathers, as by the ranckest Pa∣pists, saving that the Papists have rancked it with divine worship, and so bestowed more honour upon ••t than ever the Fathers did afford it. Bishop Morton hath attempted to give an Answer hereunto, but Dr Ames hath so replyed unto him, as that hee hath sate down, and neither he, or his Second, have in this rejoyned any thing unto Amesius.

Unto this of the Abridgement, and Mr. Hy, let me adde what Mr. Farker hath observed in the Fathers speeches concerning the Crosse, Treat, of the Cross, part. 1. pag. 90.

Chew a little upon these speech••s, it may be they will tell thy taste how unsavoury the Fathers are, in the matter of the Crosse: o 1.7 With the sign of the Crosse it is that the Body of our Lord is consecrated, and the Font of Baptism sanctified. With p 1.8 the Sign of the Crosse is the wave of Bapt••sme consecrated. q 1.9 By the Sign of the Crosse is the Lords Body consecrated. The Font of Baptisme sanctified, and all things whatsoever are made holy, they are made holy with the sign of the Lords Crosse. r 1.10 we glory in the Crosse of the Lord, whose virtue worketh throughout all Sacraments: without which sign nothing else is holy, nor any other consecration that commeth to effect. s 1.11 With the sign of the Crosse is the Fonte of Regeneration made holy; and to speak fully, all Sacraments are perfected by his virtue. t 1.12 Unlesse the sign of the Crosse be applyed to the foreheads of the Beleevers, or to the water whereby they are rege∣nerated, or to the sacrifice whereby they are fed, none of these are rightly performed. u 1.13 The water of salvation is not the water of salvation, unlesse being consecrated in Christs name, it be signed with his Crosse. Again. w 1.14 The water is good for no use of future health, without the Preaching of the Lords Crosse. But when it is consecrated with the Mysterie of the saving Crosse, then it is tempered to the use of a spiritual washing, and of a saving Cup. As therefore Moses threw the wood into the waters of Marah, and made them sweet, so the Priest sends the Preaching of the Lords Crosse into this Font, and the water thereof is made sweet unto grace.

By this you may see that your allegations out of the Fathers are in vaine, un∣lesse you had added a proof of their infallibility, or that they are to be a rule of our faith in matters of this nature.

2. One Papist is found (saith Parker, part. 1. pag. 77.) who saith,

the Fa∣thers meant not of the outward sign, but of the thing signified, which is Christs death:

It is well, that we have this confession from him, that the

Fathers cannot be justified, in case they mean the outward sign, which they mean undoubtedly, or else our opposites doe us great wrong, who object the Fathers against us in the Outward ceremony of the Crosse, &c.

3. Those that are but tolerably versed in the Fathers, cannot but confesse, that they ascribe very strange things unto the sign of the Crosse; as that it is a necessary requisite of Baptisme, that it was an Amulet against the Devil, and an instrument of Miracles, a fence or fortification of the soul against all spirituall adversaries; but these Hyperbolies, however you may excuse them, yet they are so grosse, as that they are utterly uncapable of any just Apology to be made for them; and this without more adoe might suffice for answer unto sect. 25, 26, 27, 28. But I shall farther give you some general exceptions against those testi∣monies of the Fathers you alledge, and next, say something unto them taken se∣verally and apart.

My general exceptions shall be six.

The first, the not using of the Crosse by Christ and his Apostles, is a greater prejudice against it, than all the countenance can be given unto it by the Fa∣thers of after ages; alasse! what are Augustine, Athanasius, Tertullian, &c. whom you quote, in comparison of our blessed Saviour: unto them the Spirit was gi∣ven but in measure, unto him without measure, Joh. 3.34. And, it was a spirit of wisdome and understanding, a spirit of counsel and knowledge, Isa. 11.12. and so was able to make ample and sufficient provision for any religious Ceremonies in his Church that he thought requisite: Why should not we content our selves with those few that he hath ordained? especially seeing no mortal men can produce a patent from him for the institution of any other: and why should we think the omission of the Cross in Baptism undecent? seeing it was omitted by Christ himself and his Apostles; for that it was omitted by them, is confessed by a learned Conformist, Dr. Fulk, in answer unto the Rhemists, pag▪ 252.

Nei∣ther was the sign of the Crosse, saith he, in any estimation with the Apostles, or the faithful in their time. Tertullian indeed, reckoneth signing with the Crosse to be an old Tradition, which yet is no more certain to have been used by the Apostles, than other like Ceremonies which he there nameth, as the tasting of Milk and Honey by them that were baptised, and the abstinence from wash∣ing for a week after baptism, oblations for birth dayes, and such other, ••long since abolished, which they should not have been, if they had been ordai∣ned by the Apostles as necessary for Christian Religion. As a man runneth to the Fountain, saith Cyprian, when the channels are defiled, so must we repair to the practise of the first Church, which is the Fountain of all piety: non est attendendum (saith he) quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus fecerit, & faciendum praeceperit.

Agreeable hereunto is that which Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 100. quotes out of Sadeel against the Monks of Burdeaux.

When the Monks of Burdeaux affirm the signs which are added to Baptisme, are an ornament to it, we thus reply: Are they wiser than Christ Jesus, who hath ordained his Sacrament in so great purity and simplicity, and who knoweth better than all the men in the world, what ornament was fittest for it? If it be but the covenant of a man, when it is con∣firmed, no man abrogateth it, or addeth any thing to it: What arrogancy is it then to adde to the institution of Christ?

A second exception of the Non-conformists against the Testimonies of the Fathers for the sign of the Crosse, is, that they doe not contribute so much ho∣nour

thereunto, as the suspected infamous birth and original of it doth dis∣credit: In all probabilities, say they, that Devillish Heretick, Valentinus, was the first Author and Father of it, the first that advanced it unto any religious use; and this they prove out of Irenaeus. Parker part. 1. pag. 75 averreth, that it appeareth by the Text of Irenaeus, that Valentinus did use the figure of the Crosse, to expresse one of his Aeones by; and as Valentinus was the Father of it, so Montanus, say they, was the Nurse of it. Dr. Fulk, as I told you, was a Con∣formit••ant, and no enemy unto the sign of the Crosse, so he professeth of him∣self in his confutation of the Rhemists pag. 87. As for the sign of the Crosse, so it be without superstition, we can abide well enough. And yet this man pag. 252. tels us, that Valentinus the Heretique was the first that made any great account of it; and cites for it too Irenaeus, as well as the Non-conformists.

A third exception against the pretended antiquity of the Crosse, and the Te∣stimonies of the Fathers in that behalf, is, that divers Ceremonies Coëval with the Crosse are not urged, but abolished, and yet they were never prostituted unto such superstitious and idolatrous abuses as the Crosse hath been: And therefore why should the Crosse be such a Favourite, as to be retained? This exception you may see thus managed by Parker, part. 1. pag. 39.

If our Op∣posites must needs drink of this Cistern of antiquity, then let the q 1.15 Oyle it self of Baptisme, be revived: Yea, r 1.16 Baptizing by Lay-men; for these be as ancient as the Crosse, and sprang a∣bout the same time with it. Sure with farre better reason may they rake out of their graves, the ceremony s 1.17 of Kissing the Infant Baptised; the ceremony of the t 1.18 Ring given in Baptism, for an obsignation of Faith and Profession; the ceremony of put∣ing u 1.19 Milk and Hony into his mouth; And lastly ••he Ceremony of the w 1.20 White Garment, wherewith the Baptised was wont to be clothed. These being equal to the Crosse, both for Antiquity, and for profitablenesse of signification, and surmounting it in o∣ther respects, as that they were never so much abused as the Crosse hath been, nor now import so much perill as the Crosse bring eth with it, may give wise men cause to wonder, why those should be buried in a tomb sealed up, while the Crosse not onely liveth, but also do∣mineereth.

A fourth exception againsthe ancient use of the Crosse by the Fathers, is that it is over-ballanced by the Papists abuse of it unto Idolar••y: The Brazen Serpent was ordained by God, and yet when it was abused unto Idolatry, Hezekiah did well to break it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. And therefore the Crosse being a humane invention altogether unnecessary in Gods worship, is for the Idolattous abuse of it rightly abolished. The force of this consequence may be gathered from what two English Bishops say.

1. From what Bishop Abbot hath from a translation of a passage out of the Canon Law, Def•• of Mr. Perkins part. 1. pag. 168.

If our Predecessors have done some things, which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards be tur∣ned to errour, and superstition, we are taught (saith the Law) by Hezekiahs breaking the Brazen Serpent, that the Posterity may abolish the same without any delay, and with great authority.

The very same words are urged in the like manner by Dr. John Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 510. As also by Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Politie, pag. 347.

2. From what Jewel saith for the abolition of Images, because of their Adora∣tion, Repl to Hardings Answ: artic 14. pag 383.

The best remedy in this behalf, and most agreeable with Gods Word, is utterly to abolish the cause of the ill▪ So the godly King Hezechtas took down, and brake in pe••ces the Brazen Serpent; notwithstanding Moses himself by Gods special commandment had erected it; notwithstanding it were an expresse figure of Christ hanging upon the Crosse; notwithstanding it had continued so many years; notwithstanding God by it had wrought so many Miracles. So the godly Bishop Epiphanius ••ent in sunder the Image of Christ painted in a cloth; and said, It was against Gods com∣mandment, a thing superstitious and unmeet for the Church, and people of God; notwithstanding it were the Image of Christ. So the godly Emperour Theodosius made his Proclamation over all his Dominions in this sort; Signum Servatoris nostri, quocunque l••co reperietur, toll jubemus: We straitly command, that the Image of our Saviour be taken down, in what place soever it shal be found: notwithstanding it were the Image of our Saviour. So it is decreed in the late Council of Ments, that, when Images happen to be abused by the people, they be either notably al••ered, or utterly abolished.

Unto these two I shall adde the testimony of Augustine, De Civitate Dei lib. 10. c. 8. Aeneum sane Serpentem propter facti memoriam reservatum cum postea popu∣lus errans tanquam Idolum colere coepisset, Ezechias Rex••eligiosa potestate Deo serviens, cum magna p••e••atis laude contrivit. Suppose then, though not grant, that the Anci∣ents lawfully and laudably used the sign of the Crosse, as a commemorative sign of Christs death, and a monitory sign of their duty, yet seeing it hath been made by the Papists such an abominable Idol, there is very good reason for the utter ca∣sheering it out of Gods worship.

A fifth exception is, that our Crosse is not the Fathers Crosse, who never an∣nexed any word unto it, and therefore ours is the more Sacramental; for this see Ames in his Reply to Mortons particular Def page ••7. As also Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 114.

My sixth exception I shall give you in the words of Mr. Parker, part. 1. page 133.

What though the custome of the Fathers, who used the Crosse for a sign of Christ, were on all sides good, the times doe differ. They lived in an age when it was despised; wee in a time when it is adored. They in a time when it professed the Faith; we in a time when it is common to Papists. They in a time when it was used over all the Church for the sign of Christianity; we in an age, when out of our own Church it is no where used but for a sign of Anti∣christianity.

In regard whereof we may wel appeal to the old Canons, Re∣gulae Patrum traditae sunt (saith Gregory) prout res postulare videbatur, temporis, loci, personarum, reique i••sius habitâ ratione. And Leo, s••cut quaedom sunt, quae nulla possunt ratione convelli, ita multa sunt, quae pro necessitate temporum, ac consideratione aetatum ••porteat temporari.

But I shall proceed to the examination of your testimonie•• apart.

Dr. Hammond.

Saint Augustines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denied to have truth in them b 1.21 Signum crucis nisi adhibeatur, sive f••ontibus credentium, sive ipsi aquae qua regeneramur, &c. nihil ritè pe••ficitur; unl••sse the figh of the Crosse be used either to the foreheads of the beleevers (who are baptised) or to the water it self by

which we are regenerate, it is not duly performed, i. e. with such ceremonies as by cu∣stome of the Church, the rule of decency, belong to it.

Jeanes.

Saint Augustins words at large are as followeth, Quod signum nisi adhibeatur, sive frontibus credentium, sive ipsi aquae qua regeneramur, sive oleo quo Chrismate ungun∣tur, sive sacrific••o qu•• aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. Saint Augustine here you see approves of the Ch••ism, and of the crossing of the Oyle therein, and sets it check by joule with the water in Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; now your friends doe hope that you doe not concurre with him herein; and if you doe nor, why doe you urge us with the authority of his Testimony?

2. If you apply Saint Augustines words to our times, and aver, that they can∣not be denyed to have truth in them, then your opinion is, that unlesse the sign of the Crosse be used to the water in Baptism, and to the Elements in the Lords Supper, these Sacraments are not duly performed with such ceremonies, as by custome of the Church, the rule of decency, belong unto them; and then what Apology can you make for the Church of England, that never since the Refor∣mation used any of ••hese Crossings.

3. Suppose Baptism in Augustines time had been administred without Crossing of either the forehead of the Baptised, or the water wherewith they were baptised, it had then indeed been performed not with such ceremonies as by the Custome of the then Church belonged unto it: and so Fulk, in his Confu∣tation of the Rhemists, expoundeth Augustines ritè, page 693. but this concludes nothing against us; for we hold that such Baptisme hath been ritè, that is, duly, lawfully, and laudably administred, because it would have been agreeable unto Christs institution, which alone, and not the custome of the Church, is the rule of its administration,

4. These words of Augustine are at best, but propositio malè sonans; for they carry a palpable appearance of evill, because they plainly seem to assert the ne∣cessity of the Sign of the Crosse unto Baptisme and the Lords Supper. Bellar∣mine bringeth them to prove, that nothing can be consecrated without the sign of the Crosse, de Sacra confirm. lib. 2. c. 13 as also to justifie their Crossings, that they use in the Masse, de Missa, lib. 3. c. 13. And there's a Popish Ballad mentioned by the Abridgement, and transcribed in Parker, wherein I beleeve this is one of the places in Augustine, related unto, part. 1. p. 92.

Without the Crosse Saint Augustine saith, (Read him and you may see) 1. No man is stedfast in the Faith, Nor Christened well may be.

No Sacrifice, no holy Oyle, No washing in the Font, 2. Nor any thing can thee assoyle, If thou the Cross do want.

Children by it have Christendome, The water's blest also: 3. The Holy Ghost appears to some, And eifts of Grace bestow,

When that this Cross is made aright, Of them that hallowed be: 4. Where it is not, there wanteth might, For ought that I can see.

But the very Canons of the Convocation doe disclaime all necessity of the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme,

The Church of England, since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and teacheth stil, that the sign of the Cross used in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament; for when the Minister, dipping the Infant in water, or laying water upon the face of it (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words (I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) the Infant is fully baptized; so as the sign of the Crosse being afterwards used, doth neither adde any thing to the virtue, or perfection of Baptism; nor being omitted, doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it.

Dr. Hammond.

And, Crucis signo in fronte hodie tanquam in poste signandus es, omnesque Christiani signantur (de Catechiz. rud. c. 20. tom. 4. pag. 915.) thou must be signed now in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse, as the Israelites on their door posts, and so must all Christians.

Jeanes.

Whereas you say above, that Augustines words cannot be denyed to have truth in them, you mean these last quoted, as well as the former; and if this bee so, then it will be an easie matter for you to clear up by argument this undeniable truth that is in them. God commanded the Israelites to strike the lintel and the two side posts of the door with the blood of the Passeover; therefore all Christians are obliged to be signed in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse, sounds with me as a very wild and loose inference; and therefore I shall intreat you to confirm it, or else relinquish this place of Augustine, as containing nothing of an argument in it.

Bellarmine alledgeth this place of Augustine to prove that the blood of the Lamb sprinkled upon the posts of the doors was a figure of the sign of the Cross: Tom. 2. de Eccles: triumph: lib. 2. c. 29. And unto him Chamier thus answereth; Tom. 2. pag. 878, 879. Nego crucem significatam in veteri Testamento; nisi per accidens: hoc est, quatenus Christus significatus est crucifigendus. Sed crucem directè ac per se sig∣nificatam ullis figuris, nego. Nec ignoro tamen produci posse in contrarium testimonia quaedam ex Patribus. Sed ego quicquid Patribus in buccam venit, non censeo amplect en∣dum, ut verbum Dei. Potest, inquiebat Augustinus in Psalmum trigesimum sextum, nihil aliquid videri, alteri aliud: sed neque ego, quod dixero, praescribo alteri ad meliorem intellectum, nee ille mihi. Idem de reliquis dicendum. Itaque liceat in earum sen∣tentias inquirere. Certe illud de sanguine agni posito super utroque poste, remotissimum est à Cruce. Hoc solum tenuissimum vestigium; positio in poste, nonnihil alludit ad positio∣nem in fronte; quae in corpore supremum locum occupat, sicut in ostio postis. Sed san∣guis, quanto aptiùs sanguinem Christi significaret? ut apud Gregorium homilia vigesima secunda in Evangelia. Quid sit sanguis agni, non ja••n audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis.

Qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur, quando non solum ore corporis; sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Gretserus excipit; posse unum idemque plura significare. Ita sane, inquam; sed primo variis rationibus. Itaque eadem ratione qua significat sanguinem, non potest significare crucem; At unius loci unica est ratio. Quare fi hoc uno loco signi∣ficat sanguinem Christi, non significat crucem. Deinde unum idemque potest varia signi∣ficare, at non quaelibet: sed ea tantum, ad quae habet analogiam. Quaenam est vero a∣nalogia sanguinis agni ad crucem? nam agno significari Christum nemo inficias eat. Quo∣modo ergo sanguis ex agno eductus; significabit crucem non eductam ex Christo? sanguis, inquam, effusus, crucem compactam?

Dr. Hammond.

In the forehead particularly c 1.22 in fronte figat ubi sedes pudoris) because the seate of shame is there, which wee render, in token that the baptised shall not bee ashamed.

Jeanes.

This weighs little or nothing, unlesse withall you can prove, that the Apo∣stles command of decency enjoyneth, that the seate of shame in the baptized should be marked with the sign of the Crosse, in token that he should not bee ashamed. Doubtlesse Saint Pauls practise was suitable unto his precept, and you doe not, you cannot pretend, that ever hee was signed in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse, either by himself or any other: he propounds his example for imitation, and gives this for a reason, that his pattern was that of our blessed Saviour, 1 Cor. 11.1. Be ye even followers of me, as I also am of Christ. We shall not then think that so requisite unto Baptisme which hee never used; so so long as wee follow so great a precedent, wee shall not bee much sollicitous, though we swarve from the advice of Augustine, that hath no warrant from the Word of God. Paul makes large professions, that he was not ashamed of the Gospel, which held forth a crucified Christ, Rom. 1.16. Phil. 1.20. 2 Tim 1.12. But no man can say that he ever expressed this his profession by the sign of the Crosse; and therefore we shall make no other account of the Signe of the Crosse, than as of a supernumerarie in Gods service; and those Beleevers that want it, may have confidence when Christ shall appear, and not be ashamed before him at his comming, 1 Joh. 2.28.

But perhaps you think we must stoop unto the bare words of Augustine, though not seconded with any reason; and this is more then Augustine himselfe would have expected from us: for after this manner the holy Scriptures alone are to be entertained, as Bishop Jewel proveth against Harding, Def. Apol. Chur. Engl. part. 1. p. 55. out of several places of St. August. Therfore St. Aug. saith, Alios Scrip∣tores ita lego, ut quanta libet sanctitate doctrinâque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipsi ita senserint, sed quod id mihi, vel per alios Authores Canonicos, vel proba∣bili ratione persuadere potuerint.

Other Writers or Fathers (besides the holy Scri∣ptures) I read in this sort, that be their learning and holynesse never so great, I will not think it true, because they have thought so, but because they are able to perswade me so, either by other Canonical Writers, or else by some likely reason.

Likewise again he saith, Hoc genus literarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, legendum est:

This kinde of Writings (of the holy Doctors and Fathers) must bee read, not with necessity to beleeve each

thing, but with liberty to judge each thing.

Likewise St. Augustine disputing against the Arians, refuseth, as I have said be∣fore, both Councils and Fathers, and appealeth onely to the Scriptures:

Nec ego Nicoenam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminensem debes objicere: Scripturarum authoritatibus, res cum re, causa cum causâ, ratio cum ratione concertet. Neither will I alledge the Council of Nice against you, nor shall you alledge the Council of Ariminum against me. By the authority of the Scriptures let us weigh matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason.

I shall conclude all that I have to say unto the foregoing Testimonies of Au∣gustine (and you may apply it also unto those which follow) with the Answer of Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 293. unto a place quoted out of the 118. Epist. of Aug. ad Januar. Respondeo, Magnum esse Augustini nomen in Ecclesiâ Dei, & merito quidem: Sed meminisse debemus, hominem fuisse, ac proinde errare potuisse. Et licet hoc loco quidem videatur favere Traditionibus, tamen in aliis locis, scripturae perfectio∣nem acerrimè defendit, ut postea melius patebit. Sensit enim apertissimè, nullum dogma reci••iendum esse, quod non scripturis nitatur. Aut••gitur de Traditionibus non necessa∣riis loquitur, aut fibi ipsi non consentit.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 26.

Secondly, the usage of this Ceremony of signing with the Grosse, was, wee also know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continu∣ed) in d 1.23 curing diseases, and casting out Devils, so that A∣thanasius frequently affirmes, (e) 1.24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; by the sign of the Crosse all Magick and Witchcraft is brought to naught, all the Idol Temples layd waste and empty.

Jeanes.

Bishop Morton in his particular Defence of the Ceremony of the Crosse, pag. 231, 232. tels us. That our Church doth not ascribe unto it any miraculous power of driving out devils, or of curing diseases, &c. And what he saith of our Church he speaks by just consequence of the Primitive Church; For our Church (saith he, ibid.) professeth, that she useth it onely as primitively it was used; that is, onely as a token whereby there is protestation made of a future constancy in the profession of Christianity: If it were used onely thus, then it was not used for the miraculous cure of diseases, and chasing away of Devils; and this will be denyed by none,

that knows the force of the exclusive particle onely; but you have a higher opi∣nion of the efficacy of the signe of the Crosse, than ever Bishop Morton had, or the Church of England, as he thought; and therefore I shall addresse my self to give some answer unto your miracles of the Crosse.

1. I shall in general say unto them three things.

1. If there were any such Miracles, as are pretended, they were wrought onely at the sign of the Crosse, and not by the signe of the Crosse (as you bring in Athanasius affirming) so much as by a Moral instrument they were done for the sake onely of the faith and prayers of those that used the sign of the Cross, and were consequent unto the signe of the Crosse, onely per accidens; and for this that I say, Bishop Morton alledgeth a saying out of Pe••kins: Hee confesseth (saith hee) that miracles were done of God at the sign of the Crosse, that had joyned unto it a manifest, or at least a secret invocation of the name of Christ crucified: so that the virtue was not to be imputed unto the sign of the Cross, but unto the faith of the worker, and invocation of Christ.

2. Many Miracles were wrought by the Brazen Serpent; for it came to pass, that if a Serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the Serpent of Brasse, he lived, Numb. 21.9. Yet Hezechias brake it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. and the reason is assigned why he did so; for unto those dayes the children of Israel did burn incense to it. This fact of Hezechias is praise worthy; and therefore it was no evill act to throw aside the sign of the Crosse: for suppose, though not grant, that Miracles were wrought by it, yet the Papists have burnt incense unto it: for as Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 509, 510.

It is written in your Masse-book, that in solemn Masses, the Priest having made obeysance to the Crosse, doth incense it thrice: The Jews gave u 1.25 the honour of God to creature, in that they burned Incense to it. And therefore Hezechias did cala it brazen stuff; as if you should call your Roodes wooden stuff; your Agnus•• Dei's waxen stuff, your Crucifixes and Crosses made of Copper, Copper-stuff, because you impart the honour of God to them, by putting trust and hope in them. And if x 1.26 the covetous man be called an Idolater, because he maketh mony his God, not as though he thought the coyn to be God, but because hee trusteth to live and prosper by it, y 1.27 which confidence and hope he should repose in God onely: then worship you the sign of the Crosse as an Idol, be∣cause you trust to be saved by it, as in your z 1.28 Church service you professe notoriously, and a 1.29 so your selves confesse, you worship it as God; where∣fore if b 1.30 Hezechias be praised by God for breaking in pieces the Serpent of brasse, because the children of Israel did burn Incense to it, we who have re∣moved the sign of the Crosse, because you put the hope of salvation in it, may content ourselves to be dispraised by men. But if you say therefore, that we be against the ancient Fathers in Religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up, take heed left your speech doth not touch the Holy Ghost who saith that Hezechias c 1.31 did keep Gods commandements which he co••manded Moses; and yet withall saith, that d 1.32 he brake in peices the Serpent of brass which Moses had made.

3. A third answer shall bee that which Cartwright giveth concerning those Miracles which the Rhemists alledge were done by the use of Holy Wa••e, and the sign of the Crosse: In all which, and the like Miracles (saith he, page 303) not to overthrow their credit; we yet further answer, that the good success that these means had, prove no more the lawfulness of them, than the sacrifices of living men amongst

the Gentiles unto their Idols, accompanied with some desired issue out of their troubles wherein they were, prove the lawfulnesse of that horrible and most detestable worship of their God.

4. That the former use of the sign of the Crosse in Miracles, obligeth not to a use of it (now all miraculous use thereof is by the generall confession of Protestants ceased) may be gathered, in a way of Analogie and proportion from what the above-mentioned Bishop Morton speaks, pag. 58. of Spittle and Oyle: We confess that spittle was used by our Saviour Christ, in healing of the dumb; and oyle by the Apostles, in curing of many other diseases; yet both miraculously: but to imitate the work of a Miracle without the miraculous power, is but an apish 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for to hold such a miraculous ceremony, after the virtue be gone, is but to preserve a carkass, because it had been once possessed of a soul.

From this general Answer proceed we to some particulars of the Crosses effi∣cacie.

1. You say that the usage of this Ceremony of signing with the Crosse, was we also know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in curing diseases. But now for this frequencie you onely quote in the Mar∣gin Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. And in that place there is but one instance of any cure wrought upon the usage of the sign of the Crosse, and that in Inno∣centia, a Carthaginian Matron, and the story hereof I shall give unto the Reader, as it lyeth in the Book and Chapter quoted.

In eadem Carthagine, Innocentia religiosissima faemina de primariis ipsius civitatis, in mammilla cancrum habebat, rem, sicut medici dicunt, nullis medicamentis sanabilem. Aut ergo praescidi solet, & à corpore separari membrum ubi nascitur, aut, ut aliquanto homo quietius vivat fomentis est pestis mitiganda frequentibus. Nam ut inde mortem quan∣tumlibet tardius aff••turam confidamus, secundum Hippocratis, ut fertur, sententiam, omnis est omittenda curatio. Hoe illa à perito medico, & suae domui familiarissimo acce∣perat, & ad solum Deum se orando converterat. Admonetur in somnis appropinquante pascha, ut in parte faeminarum observanti ad baptisterium, quaecunque illi baptizata primitus occurrisset, signaret ei locum signo crucis Christi, fecit, & confestim sanitas secuta est.

In the same Town one Innocentia a most religious woman, and one of the principal in the City, had a Canker on her breast, a kind of sore which the Physitians told her is utterly uncurable: wherefore they use either to cut the infected part away, or for the prolonging of the life a little while in some ease, the malady is to be asswaged and mitigated with frequent plaisters; for the opinion of Hippocrates will induce us to beleeve, that death wil thence insue, though somewhat slowly: for hee, as they say, doth advise to omit all attempt of curing it; this a skilfull Physitian her familiar friend told her; so that now she sought help of none but the Lord, who told her in a dreame, that Easter next, which then drew near, she should mark on the womans side by the Font, what woman she was, that, being then baptized, should first meet her, and that she should intreat her to signe her sore with the signe of the Crosse of Christ: She did it, and was cured.

But the Miracles related in this Chapter are of a suspected credit, it seemed unto Ludovicus Vives to bee a matter without doubt, that many things in this Chapter were added, &c. by those, who with their filthy hands have defiled all the Writings of great and famous Authors: In hoc capite non dubium, quin

multa sint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum scripta spurcis suis manibus contaminabant, &c. Of this annotation of Ludovicus Vives Rivet speaks thus, Critic. sacr. pag. 453. Lud. Viv. ad cap. 8. lib. 22. In quo mira∣cula multa narrantur, quae omnia non sapiunt exactam judicii limam, quam in aliis Au∣gust. operibus lectores sagaces observant, annotat, in hoc capite non dubium, quin multa sint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum scripta spurcis suis manibus contaminabant: Huic nothae non refragantur censores Belgici in indice ex∣purgatorio: neque Hispani inquisitores in suo: quod ideo no••andum lectori, ne semper quae ex genuin is autorum libris afferuntur, genuina esse putet, quod per Monachorum corrup∣telas non licet. Hîc igitur etiam opus est sagacitate, & judicii libra. Chamier in re∣ference to another passage in the Notes of Lud: Viv. passeth this censure upon other miracles, alledged by Papists from that place of Augustine to justifie their Invocation of Saints, de Vigesim: Octav. lib. de Civit. Dei: Possum ex Vive dicere, multum in eo lusisse sciolorum lasciviam, aut potius superstitiosorum audaciam: the Di∣vines of Rhemes in their Annotations on John 14.12. charge Protestants, that they discredit, as other Miracles, so in particular, those testified by St. Augustine in this place; and unto this charge neither Fulk nor Cartwright entred any dis∣sent, and therefore it is probable that they acknowledged it: whereas Fisher in his Answer to the Questions propounded by King James, goes about to justifie the Oblations made to Saints by some of the Miracles here recorded, said to be done at their Tombs and Shrines, Dr. Francis White seems to think that a doubt of the truth of some of these Miracles is defensible, because, saith he, these things were extraordinary; and the credit of divers of them dependeth upon fame (which is many times uncertain) b 1.33 and Saint Augustine himself saith, they are not commended unto us by such weighty autho∣rity, as that without all doubt they must needs be credited c 1.34 they cannot be sufficient grounds or foundations of Catholike Doctrine or Practise.

2. You say that by the sign of the Crosse all Magick and Witchcraft is brought to nought.

1. Surely, Sir, if ever the sign of the Crosse had such an influence, it is questionable, whether there was ever any word or promise of the Lord for it, and without such word or promise, to use the sign of the Crosse for such a purpose, was virtual and interpretative Witchcraft.

Besides 2. if it were so efficacious against Magick and Witchcraft in the Pri∣mitive times, yet, that since it hath been abused unto Magick and Witchcraft, is confessed by Bishop Abbot, a man of great piety and learning, part. 1. pag. 169. But since the Harpie of Rome hath had the handling of it, and made it a matter of Magical Inchantment, and through the current of her prophanations, it hath runne into the hands of Conjurers, Charmers, Witches, to be defiled with their divellish and dam∣nable practises, we have had a religious care to clear the first Church in the using of it; but no further to use it our selves than it may be washed from the soyl and filth of these abominations.

3. By what you say in the Margin out of Athanasius and Augustine, you insi∣nuate

a great efficacy of the sign of the Crosse in the routing and chasing away of Devils: unto this I answer:

1. That the whole Armour of God, the compleat harnesse of the Spirit, de∣rerres not Satan from assailing the best and most perfect of Christians: Christs unspotted innocency, and his absolute all-fulnesse of Grace, was temptation proof, and yet the Devil adventured upon the assault of him, and therefore it is very strange that he should be so perillously, and terribly afraid of so weake a shield as the sign of the Crosse in the forehead: No, no, saith Fulk, in answer to the Rhemists, pag. 69.4. the Devil is too craf••y and strong to yeeld to so weak a wea∣pon, but when he is disposed to play with men, that they may more easily be seduced by him.

2. It is but a sorry Sophisme, to conclude the Devils terrour at the signe of the Crosse, from his running away upon then se thereof; for this might be done out of design to get ground upon men, to return upon them with the more ad∣vantage: It might be like the flight of an Enemy to draw into an Ambuscado, into the superstition of the Crosse, that hath since so prevailed. It is to be fear∣ed therefore, that that which the Pharisees blasphemously spake of Christ, may truly be objected unto the sign of the Crosse, that it hath cast out Devils by Beel∣zebub the Prince of the Devils. Hear what Whitaker saies of the Devils feare of the sign of the Crosse, Tom. 1. pag. 390. Hoc omnium interim memoriis infixum esse debet, Daemonem esse callidum, versutum, versipellem, fallacem, mendacem. praestigiato∣rem. Fingit igitur se timere signum crucis, ut faciat nos externo magis signo confi∣dere, quam Christo ipsi crucifixo.

3. Some excuse the Fathers, as if they held, that the sign of the Crosse drived away Devils ex opere operantis, only by the faith and prayers of those that used it; but others think, that they held it to be done ex opere operato, by the Ordinance of God; and they give this reason, because they held it to bee done by aliens and unbeleevers, by Pagans and Jews, who had not the Christian Faith. Naz••••••zene relates, how that Julian the Apostate being about some fears of Necr••••••••, the Devils that he had conjured ranne all away, when he by chance had made the sign of the Crosse, without any purpose or thought of a Miracle; for he mar∣velled at the matter, as that which was more than he expected: And Gregory reports that a Jew, as yet unconverted unto the Faith of Christ, being benighted, and taking up hi•• lodging in a Temple of Apollo, routed a great multitude, or Troup of Devils that were there assembled, by signing his forehead with the ••ign of the Crosse: Unto these examples Bellarmine, Eccles. Triumph. lib. 2. cap. 30, addes the testimony of Augustine: Quare S. Augustinus lib. 83. quaestionum, qu. 79. dicit indictum à Deo Daemonibus ut cedant cruci, tanquam sceptro Summi Regis, quomodo populi militibus cedunt, cum ab illis profertur signum Imperatoris: Nec mirum est, inquit, quod haec signa valent, cum à bonis Christianis adhibentur, quando etiam cum usurpantu•• ab excraneis▪ qui omnino suum nomen ad istam militiam non dede∣runt, propter honorem tamen excellentissimi Imperatoris valent, Cum autem non cedunt his signis hujusmodi potestates, Deus ipse prohibet occultis modis, cum id justum, atque utile judicat; nam nullo modo ulli spiritus ••••••ent haec signa contemnere: Conrime∣scunt haec, ubicunque illa prospexerint. By 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you may see, how farre the Fathers went in their opinion touching the efficacy of the Crosse, and I am so charitable as that I thinke you doe not come up unto them herein, and if you do not, you have no reason to presse me with their sayings.

3. You say out of Athanasius, that by the signe of the Crosse, all the Idoll Temples were layd waste and empty: I could wish that you had exemplified this by some instances, that we might have considered of what weight they had been: The Papists of the Seminary of Rhemes have referred us unto a famous story in Theodoret, which saith Fulk, pag 694. is a Miracle wrought by Marcel∣lus Bishop of Apamea in serting the Temple of Jupiter a fire, with sprinkling of water, after he had signed it with the Crosse, and prayed, when it would not burn with fire: This is a pretty story, if true, and will serve aptly for your purpose: But, Sir, wee shall hope for so much charity from you, that you will nor brand for Infidels, all, that have not saith strong enough to swallow these Miracles of the Crosse. Theodoret might have this at the second hand, and hee himself might be deceived, though he were unwilling to deceive, and in all ages devout and wel-meaning persons have been over-credulous in entertaining counterfeit and fained Miracles.

As for the places quoted out of Augustine, I cannot find them in Frobenius his Edition of Augustine, and I have no other, and therefore I think you follow some other Edition; but the thing is not material; for I hope, that what I have said already will be a satisfactory answer unto them.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 27.

And then Baptisme being the exorcising of Devils (the ancient Catechists wee know were called Exorcists) the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into Gods Sonship and family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly symbolical, than the use of this in Baptism, according to that of Tertullian, de Resurr. Carn. Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur, the flesh or body is signed, that the soul may be defended or fortified.

Jeanes.

Your ordinary Readers will thinke you Conjure, when they hear you term Baptisme an exorcising of Devils; for they never heard of any Exorcisme in Baptisme, save of the Papists, which our Divines brand for Magical; and whe∣ther this expression might not have been forborn to avoyd all appearance of e∣vill, in complyance with Papists in their use of Exorcisme. I shall not deter∣mine, but leave it unto your own prudence to think of. Whereas you say, that the ancient Catechists were called Exorcists, the reason of this may probably be, because the Catechumeni were exorcised before Baptisme, Aquin. Sum. part. 3. quaest. 71. artic. 2. But I shall not contend about this with you, for fear I should bee thought as very a fool as the Philosopher, who read a Lecture of Warre before Hannibal. There is a passage in Augustine that seemes to favour somewhat what you say, Tom. 7. pag. 577. Ab hac igitur potestate tenebrarum, quarum est Diabolus princeps, id est, à potestate Diaboli, & angelorum ejus quisquis erui, cum baptizantur, ne∣gaverit parvulos, ipsorum ecclesiae sa cramentorum veritate convincitur, &c. In veritate itaque no•• in falsitate potestas diabolica exor••••zatur in parvulis, eique renunciant, quia per sua non possunt, per corda & ora gestant••m, ut eruti à potestate tenebrarum in reg∣num sui Domini transferantur. Unto this testimony I beleeve it is easie for you to adde many more.

But yet notwithstanding all this, it is very well known, by all that know the difference betwixt the Predicaments, that the Sacrament of Baptisme cannot be

said to be the Exorcising of Devils, the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan, the delivery of him from the tyranny, otherwise than in an improper, tro∣picall, and metonymicall praedication, viz. as it is a sign and seal, and if you will, a moral instrument of the conditionall promise thereof.

But what advantage reap you unto your cause by this? why unto this Exor∣cising of Devils, the rescuing a person from the power of Satan into Gods fami∣ly, the use of the Crosse in Baptisme is exactly symbolical? Your argument (if there be any argument in your words) as I conceive, stands thus: That which is so exactly symbolical unto any thing signed, sealed, conveighed, and exhibited in Baptisme, is so decent, as that the omission thereof would be undecent: but the use of the Crosse in Baptisme is exactly symbolical unto that which is signed, sealed, and conveighed, or exhibited in Baptisme, viz. the Exorcising of Devils, the rescuing a person from the power of Satan into Gods Sonship and Family, therefore the use of it is so decent, as that the omission thereof would be undecent; you cannot but expect that the Major will be denied, and 'tis very strange that you leave it destitute of all proof; for you cannot be ignorant if you have read the Non-conformists, whom you oppose, that their great quarrell a∣gainst our Ceremonies, was their symbolicalnesse and mystical signification; their arguments against which you may read at large in the Abridgement, page 41, 42, &c. usque ad 49. Ames his Reply to Mortons Generall Def. page 33, 34, &c. usque ad 58. As also in his Triplication to Dr. Burges Disp. about humane Ceremon. page 209, 210. usque ad 336. Parker. Treat. of the Crosse, part 1 page 97, 98, &c. usque ad 112. Didoclave, page 522, 523, &c. usque ad 536.

But, Sir, you may thinke to blow off all the Arguments with a silent scorne and contempt, and this indeed many doe with those arguments which they can∣not answer; but if you will not vouchsafe to read these Authors, if you please to accept of my service, I will abridge the substance of their arguments, and attend your answer unto them.

Then, for the Minor, I have four things to say unto it.

1. Baptisme it self is more proper, agreeable, or exactly Symbolical, unto the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into Gods Sonship and Family, than the signe of the Crosse; and therefore the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme is a superfluous supernumerary, like the dimme and smoakie light of a candle in the presence of the clear and glorious light of the Sun at noon-day.

2. The Popish Exorcisme and Exsufflation are as, if not more, proper, agree∣able, and exactly symbolical, unto the Exorcising of Devils as the use of the Crosse in Baptisme, and they have not been so much abused as it, and may as easi∣ly be purged from all Superstition and Idolatry, and therefore you may as well conclude concerning them as the Cross, that they are so decent as that the omis∣sion of them would be undecent.

3. I much question whether or no two crosse motions of a finger or a thumb be so proper, agreeable, and exactly symbolical, unto so high, dreadfull and pro∣found a mystery, as the delivery of us from the power of Satan and darknesse, and the translation of us into the kingdome of the dear Son of God, as you af∣firm; and I shall hardly beleeve you, unlesse you bring other proofs, besides the Hyperbolies of the Fathers.

As for that which in confirmation of the Minor, you quote out of Ter∣tullian:

1. It is urged by some, not onely for the signification, but also for the opera∣tion

and efficacy of the Crosse, and whether you will go so far I cannot tell.

2. Unto it Mr. Whitaker, when urged by Papists for Traditions, gives this an∣swer, Tom. 1. pag. 390. At anima side contra Satanam munienda est, non cruce. Ve∣teres quidem se hoc signo adversus Daemonas munitos esse putârunt, sed hoc ex haeresi Montani fluxit.

And of him Mr. Fuller in his History of the University of Cambridge pag. 125, gives this deserved character; He was one so exactly qualified, that the Professors Chair may seem made for him, and he for it, they mutually so fitted each other.

3. I would desire to know, how you like the companion of the Crosse in Tertullian, the holy oile? caro ungitur, saith he, in the words immediately fore∣going, ut anima consecretur: but perhaps you are for the reviving of that, as well as for the using of the Crosse; and some stick not to say, that 'tis as ancient as the Crosse.

One thing more I cannot but remember you of, before I leave this Section, and it is a distinction of mystical signification by the learned and reverend Morton, the word mystical signification hath two acceptions, saith he, General Def. pag. 52. The one Sacramental, by signification of grace conferred by God; the other is onely Moral, by signification of mans duty and obedience towards God. The ceremo∣nies which we defend (saith he) are onely mystical Moral, not Sacramental; and for his disclaiming these, he gives this reason, page 53, 54. A sacramental sign (be∣ing, as sacramental, so likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a seal of Gods promises, * 1.35 as the Apostle calleth Circumcision) is alwaies founded upon the expresse Covenant of God, therefore none but the Author of the Covenant may institute or appoint any such sign. For who∣soever shall undertake to adde a seal unto the Will and Covenant of any Testator amongst men, is forthwith held Falsarius, and thereby made obnoxious to the Law, and lyable to the grievous judgements of man: How much more damnable an Act were it for any to affix any sign, properly Sacramental, unto the Testament of our Lord Jesus? which whoso∣ever shall attempt to do, becommeth guilty of sacrilegious depravation of the blessed My∣steries of Salvation.

Now you make the sign of the Crosse to be that which Morton calls a Sacra∣mental signe; for he describes a Sacramental signe to be that which signifieth Grace conferred by God: & is not the rescuing of a person from the power of Sa∣tan into Gods Sonship and Family (as for your other expression: Baptisme is the Exorcising of Devils, I am not much delighted with the repetition of it) a grace conferred by God? and unto this you say the sign of the Crosse is exactly Symbo∣licall, and therefore a Sacramental sign.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 28.

And if instead of the f 1.36 frequent use of it among the Ancients, even g 1.37 before the cumbersome weight of Ceremonies came in (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Martyr, Qu. ••in pag. 364. in time of Prayer we sign those that have any need of it, those that are any way ill affected) wee in this our Church retain it onely in our solemne entrance into Christs

Camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his Banner, and in confidence that he that thus signed to Constantine Victory from heaven (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in this overcome) will thus give grace, and seal to us victory over our ghostly enemies, What question can there ever be of the perfect decency of this usage among us?

Jeanes.

Here the argument to prove the perfect decency of the usage of the signe of the Crosse in Baptism, is the frequent religious use of it amongst the ancients; I say the religious use, because we oppose not the civil use of it in Coins and Ban∣ners. But

1. You know, it is generally denyed by the Non-conformists, that the fre∣quent use of the Crosse amongst the Ancients was lawfull and justifiable, and untill this bee cleared, your argument will bee little better than Petitio principii.

2. Bellarmine useth the like argument, de Missa lib. 2. cap. 15. for their cros∣sings in the Masse, having quoted divers Fathers for the antiquity of the sign of the Crosse, who teach that it is to be used in every businesse: he propounds hereupon an interrogation, very like unto that of yours: Quod si in omni negotio signum crucis adhibendum, cur non in actione tremendi sacrificii? But this perhaps startles you not.

3. I demand whether the use of the Crosse amongst the Ancients was de∣cent or undecent? If it was decent, then why was it abrogated? If it was un∣decent, then how can you infer therefrom, the perfect decency of the use of the Crosse in Baptism?

But though I doe not deny the frequent use of the Crosse among the An∣cients, yet I have something to observe concerning the witnesses which you al∣ledge therefore.

The first is Tertullian de Cor. Milit. cap. 3.

But this Book was written by him when a Montanist, this is confessed on all hands, but I shall content my selfe with the naming onely of two Witnesses.

The first is a moderate Conformist, Doctor Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 392. Re∣spondeo, Tertullianum faisse Montanistam, quando hunc librum scripsit. Facit enim mentionem novarum prophetiarum, quarum Montanum inventorem fuisse, dubium non est. Fuit vero Montanus multarum Traditionum author, quae postea extirpari non pote∣rant. Dixit, se habere illum paracletum, quem promisit Christus; & fretus hujus pa∣racleti authoritate, multa 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in Ecclesiam invexit. Impius hic Montanus Ter∣tullianum ipsum fefellit, cujus viri jacturam casumque merito lugere possumus. Illo enim tempore nullus d••ctior, nullus sanctior, nullus pro fidei Christianae defensione ve∣hementior fuit Tertulliano. Sed haeresis illa Montani omaem Tertulliano fidem de∣traxit. Sic enim Hilarius ait, in Comment. in Matth. Canon. 5. Quanquam & Ter∣tullianus (inquit) hac de••re aptissima volumina scripserit, consequens error homi••i•• detraxit scriptis probabilibus authoritatem. Hieronymus verò, in lib. contra Helvi∣dium affirmat, eum Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse. Et in Catal. de Te••talliano idem ait, eum multa contra Ecclesiam scripsisse; & reverâ scripsit. Quae cum ita fint, quàm absurdum est, Montanicas Traditiones Tertulliani nomine nobis obtru∣dere.

The other is a zealous and rigid pleader for humane religions Ceremonies, Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Politie, pag. 65, when Tertullian disputed against

the Christian souldiers wearing a Crown or Garland on their heads, when they receive their Donative; He was a Montanist, and an enemy unto the Church, for condemning that prophetical spirit, which Montanus and his followers did boast they had received, as if in them Christ had performed his last premise; as if to then he had sent the Spirit, that should be their perfecter and final instructer in the my∣steries of Christian truth. Which exulceration of mind made them apt to take all oc∣casions of contradiction. Wherefore in honour of that action, and to gall their minds, who did not so much commend it, he wrote his book De Cotona Militis, not dissembling the stomack wherewith he wrote it.

2. The Crossings which Tertullian speaks of, would be a weight cumbersome enough without any other Ceremony, and this cannot be denyed by such in∣different persons as will read his words at large; for thus they are, Ad om∣nem progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem additum, & exitum, ad vestitum, ad cal∣ceatum, ad lavaera, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubicula, ad sedilia, quandocunque nos conversatio exerce••, frontem crueis signaculo terimus. Here you see, that the Crossing in Tertullians time was at every step, at every coming to and going out, at the apparrelling themselves, at washing, at eating, at lighting candles, and at sitting, &c.

3. The frequent use of the Crosse, mentioned by Tertullian at every step, and in every action that we do, was not, could not be decent, because it could not but be a great hinderance, disturbance, and distraction unto the more necessary, and important actions of mens lives, especially seeing you will say, it was to be accompanied with inward action of the soul suitable thereunto: now how can that, which is not decent in it self, derive that, which it hath not, unto a∣nother: this perpetual Crossing, was so farre from being decent, as that it was ri∣diculous; and should we now see a man after this manner crossing of himself, we would think either that he was out of his wits, or else that he was trans∣ported with such delusions of Satan, as the Quakers are now, or the Montanists were in Tertullians time.

A second witnesse is Palladius de Historia Lausiaca. This Author I suspected to be fabulous by the two tales related out of him by Bellarmine, de Reliq. & Ima∣ginib. Sanctorum, cap. 29. and I cannot but wonder that you should alledge him, considering the character that Hierome and Epiphanius give of him; but not having the Book in my own Study, I sent unto a friend in Oxford, to make some search after the place, and in a short time this answer was returned un∣to me.

What authority is to be given to that quotation out of Palladius concerning Hippolytus, whom he would have to be Apostolorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉? * 1.38

None at all, or very little: For

1. Palladius, hee lived in the end of the forth Century, anno 389, * 1.39 saies a 1.40 Laurentius de la Barre, Bellarmine (descript. Eccles. pag 156. in Pal∣ladio, puts him ad annum 390) saith he was coetaneous with Hierom and Ruffine, and a man of no great repute. Reprehenditur (saith b 1.41 Bellarmine) ut Origenista Pallactius (saith c 1.42 Hierome) servus nequitiae, candem haeresim instaurare conatus est, & novam translationi calumniam Hebraicae mihi struere, nunc quo{que} mysteriū iniquitatis operatur And at the same time Epiphanius, d 1.43 Palladium, qui quondem nobis ••harus fuit, & nunc misericordiâ Dei indiget, cave, quia nunc Originis baeresim praedi∣dicat, &c. And though he seemed afterwards to have forsaken

his Haeresies, yet (if we may beleeve e 1.44 Possevine) Mutavit personam, non animum.

2. This Historia Lausiaca, was called so, not by Palladius himself, who inscribes it thus f 1.45 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: Paliadii Episcopi Historia vitas sancto∣rum Patrum continens. But because he dedicated that Histo∣ry, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Lauso Praeposito, to an e∣minent man then in authority; so it was that from this Lausus it was called Lausiaca.

3. This Narration of Hippolytus here cited, occurs in the g 1.46 La∣tine Edition of Palladius by Gentianus Hervetus, thus, Quae cum sic fecisset, & se totam signo crucis muniisset, egressa est, &c. He speaks of a Corinthian Virgin, a Christian, damned by the Judge to the Stews, out of which place she escaped (a pious young man giving her the cloaths) in mans apparel, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (that is, putting on mans apparel) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and signing her self all over with the Mystery of the Crosse, shee escaped safe. So the story is, in the Greek Edition by Meursius pag. 154. what other Greek copy the Doctor made use of, I know not; he cites pag. ••049. whereas in Meursius his Edition there are but 212. pages in all.

3. He tells us where he had this Fable, or History (for Palladius does not affirm it to be true) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (i.e. in alio libello, qui inscri∣bebatur (Hippolyti ipsis Apostolis cogniti, seu Apostolorum coaetanei) Istiasmodi Natratio∣nem inveni: And then he tels this story of the Corinthian Virgin.

4. So that the Summe is: He found a Pamphlet (for so the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies) which was inscribed to Hippolytus, who was known to the Apo∣stles, but that it was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a false and spurious inscription, he tels us not, onely he found a Pamphlet so inscribed.

2. It is very likely he had no great opinion of that Pamphlet, for then he would have told us so, to give reputation to the story. For in the very next h 1.47 story before this, which is concerning a Virgin called Juliana, he tels us, he had it out of a most ancient book of Hymns, writ by Origens own hand, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; whereas he hath nothing of this, but that he saw a Pamphlet so inscribed.

3. And this is more probable, because I find not any Ecclesiastical Histori∣an (or other Author) mention any such Hippolytus, who was Apostolorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

4. Nor is there any foundation in Antiquity, in the testimony of any good Author, that any such Crossing was used in the Apostles time, though I know in Tertullians time, and afterwards, it grew much in fashion, especially in the

fourth Century in the time of i 1.48 Chrysostome k 1.49 Augustine, and this Palladi∣us, who was Bishop of Helenopolis, and this is confessed by l 1.50 Dr. Rainolds a∣gainst Hart (where you have much about Crossing) who denies (and justly too) that any such use of the Crosse was used in the Apostles times, nor do I finde any affirm it, but they of Rome, who (against all reason and antiquity) would have all their ridiculous and superstitious Ceremonies to be Apostolical: It is ob∣servable further, that the Latin Translation by Gentianus, differs very much from the Greek put out by Joh. Meursius (as he m 1.51 himself tels us) and both of them very much (even in this present story we now speak of) from an ancient Greek Manuscript copy of Palladius in Bodlyes Library. So that 'tis evident the book hath been much interpolated; so that he had need of a spirit of Prophecy, who would certainly tell us which is genuine, which spurious.

For instance, in Meursius his Edition Lugd. Batav. 1616. pag. 152. The 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the 93 Narration or Chapter is thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then the narration begins thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And then the next Narration (Narratio 94. pag. 154. hath this 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

Now in the Manuscript ancient Copy in Bodlyes Library those two Chapters are but one, and the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one, thus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And then the Narration begins thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Difference e∣nough, and therefore negligence or knavery enough in the Tran∣scribers.

Besides this University friend, I consulted another in the Country, who had, I knew, a well furnished study, and from him I received this following Answer.

Sir,

Palladius his Historia Lausiaca I find in the seventh Tom. of Bibliotheca Sanct. Patrum, put forth by Margarinus de la Bigne at Paris, Anno 1589. of which Author Bellarmine himself in his Book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ad annum 390. confesseth (after he had first praised this History, as not a little profitable to the Reader of it) that this Palladius is reproved by Saint Hierome, in an Epistle of his to Ctesiphon, for an Origenist, and so accounted also by Epiphanius in an Epistle of his to John of Jerusalem, which Epistle is to be seen (as he saith) in the se∣cond Tom. of Hieroms Works. This History of Palladius hath the name Lau∣siaca, from one Lausus, to whom it is dedicated both by Palladius and Heraclides. a Bishop of Cappadocia; both which Epistles dedicated to Lausus, are prefixed to this History. The History hath more Miracles in it than are in the New Testament, and as strange ones as are in any Legend, and it seemeth the Author, (as he saith at the 56. Sect. of this History) could have reported stranger, but that they did excedere miraculi modum; not that they were false though, but be∣cause men wanted faith to believe them. In the first Sect one Dorotheus, cum prius signaculo crucis se munivisset, draweth, and drinketh the water of a Well, wherein there were Asps: Abbot Copres, sect. 49. went into the flames of a great fire, and staid there half an hour, and had no hurt, but as he entred the fire he was in nomine Christi signatus. One Abbot Be, at the entreaty of some Husbandmen of that Country, commanded a Sea horse (Hipp-potamus) who

wasted that Country to be packing, and not to spoil the Country any more. And so forthwith this Sea horse, as if he had been driven away by an Angell, anish∣ed, omnino evanuit. Sect. 17. An Hyaena brings her whelpe unto Abbot Macarius and layeth it down at the Abbots feet, this whelp was blind, the Abbot spits upon the eyes of this blind whelp, prayeth, and the whelp recovereth its sight; the Hyaena taketh up the whelp, and deparreth: But then the next day the same Hyaena bringeth a great sheep-skin unto the Abbot, offereth it unto him (belike as a token of her thankfulness for the cure) the Abbor refuseth the present, rat∣leth the Hyaena for killing the sheep, adviseth her to kill no more sheep, the Hyaena, capite suo annuit, ut quae sancto Macario assentiretur, Saith my Authour: up¦on the report of St. Paphnutius in another Place, the Divell in the habit of a Presbyter offereth the Sacrament to one, but the good Presbyter discovereth the Divell, and defies him, and his Sacrament. In another place one liveth many yeares, and had no other sustenance, but the Sacrament once every Sabbath day.

By this time the Reader is, I hope, sufficiently satisfied, that your Author Palladius is a Legendary writer, the Gentlemen who have made this search for me, desire for the present, to have their names concealed, but however they will be responsible for what they have written, when ever you shall be pleased to call them to an account.

A third witnes is the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Mar∣tyr, but this Author is unknown, and the book a forgery, unworthy of Justin Martyr, and as short of his former writings as Lead is of Gold, this you know a great deal better then my self, but others may see as much demonstrated by Rivet. Critie. sacr. lib. 2. cap. 5. Out of Possevinus, Sylburgius and Scaltetus.

But you have perhaps another argument, hinted towards the conclusion of this section, and it is the apparition of the signe of the Crosse unto Constantine, of which you speak in those words; he that thus signed to Constantine victory from Heaven (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉in this overcome &c.

But it is much questioned, whether or no that which you call the signe of the Crosse, was that which appeared unto Constantine. Bishop Abbot in his an∣swer unto Dr. Bishop his Epistle unto King James pag. 167. saith, that the signe of the Crosse, unto which Constantine was so much affectioned (and that which he was so affectionate unto, was that which appeared unto him) was indeed i 2.1 the signe of the name of our Saviour, consisting of the two Greek letters x and p, and in the form of a 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are the two first letters of the name of Christ, and did import the same whole name, by the sight whereof in the skie Constantine was advertised, that k 2.2 by Christ be must conquer and overcome. To which name of Christ, represented to Constantine, his most excellent majesty giveth the same honour that Constantine did, reposing therein the whole trust of his Victory, and safety, both spirituall and corporall, and knowing that no l 2.3 other name is given under heaven, by which we must be saved, but only the name of Jesus Christ. This opinion••s embraced by many; but Dr. John Rainolds of all others, I beleeve, speakes most fully of it in his conference with Hart, pag. 507, 508. The sign that appeared to Constantine in the Element was a signe of the name of Christ, not his Crosse: howsoever the Coiners and m 2.4 Crosse-maintainers of your Church doe falsly paint it out. For as n 2.5 Eusebius writeth, (unto whom Constantine did report the thing, and shewed him that ensign, which he had caused to be made in the likeness

thereof) it was the forme of a * 2.6 Spear standing strait upright, with a Crown on the top of it, and as it were a horn, which did crosse the midest of the Spear aslope. So that at represented two of the Greek letters, x and p: which being the two first letters of the name of Christ, the name of Christ was signified by that sign to Constantine. Thus be describeth it who saw it.

Vnto this Hart thus replyeth, but out of doubt he calleth it the signe or the monument of the Crosse also.

And unto this Dr. Rainolds thus rejoyneth. But * 2.7 himself sheweth, that he calleth it so, because it resembled o 2.8 the signe of a Crosse. For neither was it like the Crosse fully, which had p 2.9 another figure: and where he describ∣eth it, he saith in plain termes that it was 6 2.10 a signe of the name of Christ. Neither were those words that you rehearsed written by it, In this signe o∣vercome, as your q 2.11 Doctor saith: (belike because he read it coined in the Cruseado so, or in the Portigue) bu•• r 2.12 by this overcome: as if God shew∣ing him the name of Christ, should have said unto him that s 2.13 there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved. In the which meaning it seemeth that Constantine did understand it also: because t 2.14 he used afterward to carry in his Helmet, not the signe of the Crosse, but those two letters by which the name of Christ was represented to him.

But suppose it was the very signe of the Crosse, which you imagine, appear∣ed unto Constantine, yet this will make nothing for the perfect decency of the usage of the signe of the Crosse in Baptisme amongst us: and my reason is, because apparitions in the aire, though they be not illusions of Satan, the Prince of the aire, but true & reall miracles, doe not oblige us unto an imitation of the like in Gods ordinances: strong and powerfull motives they are unto the worship of Christ, but were never designed to be a rule of it, and he that useth it to such a purpose perverts it from its right end.

Dr. Hammond.

And then for the Surplice: It is no newes, I hope, for severall sorts of men to have solemne Garments, for solemne actions which they doe not use at other times. The Judges upon the Bench, or the Lords at their coming to Parliament, are a sufficient evidence of this, who weare not those Robes in common occasions, which there they do, as betokening their quality. and the imployments they are about. And then what is thus customary in civill matters (viz, to difference persons and imployments, yea and dayes, by distinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogy undeniable, is as fitly and decently from thence derived to solemne sacred actions also, such are the publick offi∣ces of the Priest: and the commands of our Superiours being added to this decency of the matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is, I am sure, more than undecent for inferiors to be

obstinate, and deny obedience to them. In the choice of the garment, there hath been also, as near as may be, a resemblance observed of those garments, which in Scripture are mentioned for the like solemnities, long, shining, i. e. white robes or garments. And if the constant usage of other Churches besides this of ours, Eastern as well as Western, for so many Centuries together, be considered, it will be competently able to e∣stablish an Ecclesiastical custome also, which, in things of this nature, externall ornaments and formalities, is a more rat onal ground, and rule or measure of decency, than any Mr. J. (or Amesius to boot) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking and casting away those bands which tyed no harder a yoak than this upon their shoulders.

Jeanes.

The Surplice was used not onely as a note of distinction, but also for its mysti∣cal signification, to betoken sanctity of life, and untill this latter use of them be proved lawfull, your four arguments will be but a begging of the Question, as you will soon perceive, when you attempt the reducing of them into forme.

This may suffice for answer unto all your arguments; but I shall also give unto each of them a several answer.

The first argument is taken from the Analogy betwixt civill and sacred per∣sons and actions: Civil persons wear solemn garments for solemn actions, which they doe not use at other times; therefore it is decent for Ministers to weare solemne garments in their solemne sacred actions, which they doe not use in common occasions, as whilst they are walking in the streets, or the like.

To answer this, I need not trouble my self, but only referre the Reader unto what Ames answereth unto the like objection of Bishop Mortons in his Reply to his particular Def. &c pag. 4. To which I answer.

1. That if all this be granted, yet it maketh not for the Surplice; which is not a Civil but an Ecclesiastical, Religious habit; there is great difference be∣twixt a grave, civil habit, and a mystical garment.

2. The consequence doth not follow; because in the exercising of the Mi∣nisterial duty, nothing is requisite which the Lord himselfe doth not impose upon his Ministers. A Minister then hath another person, than when he walk∣eth in the street.

3. There is a great disparity betwixt Judges and Ministers, in regard of their Functions; for Judges Functions are civill, and therefore subject unto mans Institutions: but Ministers in their Functions are onely to observe what he, whose service they are to perform hath appointed.

This answer fits your argument, as if it had been purposely made for it, and by this the Reader may see, that it was baffled long agoe, and methinkes you should not have propounded it anew without some reinforcement.

But your second argument will strike the matter dead; The Command of our Superiours added unto the decency of the matter. But this mends the matter nothing at all; for our Superiours, as well as others, are prohibited to make any additionals unto the Worship instituted by the supream Law giver, who had in∣finite Wisdome, and so could sufficiently provide whatsoever was fitting in his own Worship and Service: All additions unto the Ceremonial Law under the Old Testament were unlawfull, Deut. 12.32. And why then should it be law∣full

to adde unto the Ceremonial Law in the New Testament? Christ was faith∣full in the House of God, as Moses, Heb. 3.2. and therefore his provision for rituals was as perfect and exact, though not as numerous.

Your third Argument, The resemblance of the Surplice unto those Garments which in Scripture are mentioned for the like solemnities, long, shining, white Robes or Garments, I suppose you mean some of the holy Garments of Aaron, that were appointed for glory and for beauty, Levit. 16.4. and then this reason may involve the Surplice in the guilt of Judaisme, rather than prove its decency. Hath God, think you, abrogated those mystical Garments that were of his owne institution, to make way for such as shall bee of mens invention: If we must needs have mystical apparel, what can be more fitting than that which God him∣self ordained?

The Word and Sacraments doe sufficiently minde a Minister of his duty, and the light of them is so full and clear, like that of the Sun, as that it needs not the candle of a Surplice. This instruction of the Church by humane Ceremo∣nies, is to teach her with a Fescue, to hide the light of the Gospel under a bush∣el, and it is a vailing and shadowing of its brightnesse.

Some have concluded the Surplice to be decent, because the Angels appear∣ed in shining garments, Luk. 24.4. in raiment white as snow, Mat. 28.3. because the glorious Saints in heaven are cloathed with white robes, Revel. 7.9. and the Lambs Wife shall be arraied with fine linnen, clean, white, Revel. 19.8. But these inferences are, as they say, à baculo ad angulum, and you are wiser than to own them, and yet the strength of your argument is little, if at all, superiour to them.

Your fourth argument is, the constant usage of other Churches, besides this of ours, Eastern as well as Western, for many Centuries together.

But first, the not using the Surplice by Christ and his Apostles, and some Cen∣tures immediately following their times, is a safer president to imitate, than the usage of it in succeeding Centuries, which were not so pure and incorrupt as the Primitive time.

2. Those which are utterly unskilled in the Ancients, may collect from the confession of your great and learned Hooker, Ecclesiastical Politie, pag. 245. That the true and Primitive antiquity of the Surplice, is a matter very doubtful, not∣withstanding, saith he, I am not bent to stand stiffly upon these probabilities, that in Hieromes and Chrysostomes times any such attire, as a white garment, was made several unto this purpose, to wit, for Ministers to execute their Ministe∣ry in, and it is without doubt that in the next age, the cumbersome weight of Ceremonies, as you call it, burdened the Church; for Augustine who lived in the times of Hierome complained hereof, Epist. 119. ad Januar. Quamvis enim neque hoc inveniri possit, quomodo contra fidem sint, ipsam tamen religionem, quam paucissimis & manifestissimis celebrationum Sacrament is misericordia Dei esse liberam voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditis Judaeorum, qui etiam si∣tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis, non humanis praesumptio∣nibus subjiciuntur. Sed ecclesia Dei inter multam paleam multaque zizania constituta multa tolerat.

In the next place you averre, that Ecclesiastical custome in things of this na∣ture, is a more rational ground and rule of decency then any Mr. J. or Amesius to boote, will readily be able to produce, for the rejecting of them, &c. But un∣till Amesius his argument against things of this nature, humane mystical ceremo∣nies,

be answered, this comparison with impartial Readers will passe for nothing but vapouring.

In the end of the Section, you give a hint of the tolerablenesse of the Ceremo∣nies, they were bands which tyed no harder yoke than this, upon your shoulders.

But first, God hath broken the yoke of his own Ceremonies, and our Pre∣lates cannot shew us any commission for their pretended authority to make a new yoke of their own, and with it to gall the necks and consciences of Christs Members and Ministers. Paul, though he thought all indifferent things to be lawfull, yet he professeth that he would not be brought under the power of a∣ny, 1 Cor. 6.12. Now we were brought under the power of the Crosse and Sur∣plice; for as Aquinas rightly, qui utitur eo, quod non expedit, sive licitum sive illici∣tum, redigitur quedammodo sub rei illius potestate, and we were enthralled unto the use of them, when they were not expedient, when they did not edify, but destroy and scandalize.

2. If we may judge of the late Bishops zeal by their punishments, they shewed more zeal against the neglect of their Ceremonies, than against the omission of the weightiest matter of both the Law and Gospel; the most scandalous and ig∣norant Ministers found more favour at their Tribunals, than such of the Non∣conformists as were renowned for parts and learning, and exemplary for perso∣nal piety and diligence in their Ministerial function.

3. Their rigour in imposing these bands was unexcusable and unsupportable; for it was upon no lesse penalties than silencing and deprivation, and these were upon the most peaceable and conscientious Dissenters: and when these arguments satisfied them not (and they were the best arguments their Consi∣stories yeelded) the poor men were judged obstinate and contumacious, and then the Secular power was called upon for their perpetual imprisonment, they must not breath in English aire, unlesse in the close, and perhaps infected one, of a stinking prison; and there they must rot and expire, except they conform against their consciences: But I hope the Prelates sufferings have awakened them unto a sight of, and sorrow for this their over severity, if not, I shall pray unto God to open their ears, that they may hear the voice of his rod.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 30.

In this case I beleeve (though not in the garments themselves) there is place for that decency, the omission of which necessarily inferres indecency, and for such order the breaking of which must soon end in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (which Mr. J. saith St. Paul opposes to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) viz. down right confusion.

Jeanes.

Here we have a great deale of confidence in your conclusion, but upon a diligent and most impartial search, I cannot find any premises of a pro∣portionable strength to bear it up; indeed you are like to meet with some par∣tial Readers, who will think your proofs irrefragable, because you have poured our so many quotations out of the Fathers, whereas all the while there is nothing in all this your discourse that looks like an Argument: If you think my cen∣sure injurious, you may right your self, by reducing your Arguments unto form,

and then, if they be found convincing, the shame will be mine, and until this be done, I shall satisfie my self with that which Ames speakes concerning the pretence of decency, In his reply to Mortons particular def. &c. pag. 3.

As for the rule of decency, which is here made the ground of all this affirmation; it were to be wished that the Defendant would have brought it into a Syllo∣gisme, that we might have seen the force of it; for now I cannot devise what Logick will conclude different Ministerial Garments, from decency; ••eeing de∣cency was, and is without them, in a multitude of Christian Churches and Mi∣nisters; but as some blundering Logicians, make their rule de omni & de nullo, serve to prove every thing: so this Defendant would make us beleive that his rule of decency will maintaine any thing that it pleaseth our spirituall Lords to impose upon us.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 31, 32, 33.

Having said thus much ex abundanti above what was incumbent on me, I shall flat∣ter myself, that I may not spare any larger paines, in survey of Amesius's arguments, which Mr. J. is resolved to think considerable, and to speak very magnificently of ••hem, as proving that the text 1 Cor. 14.40 rightly understood, doth not only not authorize any humane institution of ceremonies, but on the contrary plainly condemnes them, and this, saith he, was so well managed by him, that he hath quite beaten out of the field Bishop Morton and his second, Dr. J. Burges,

32. Here is triumph indeed. And I suppose the Reader already discernes, what are the grounds of it, viz. that Amesius acknowledges nothing decent, but that, the o∣mission of which necessarily inferres indecency, i.e. as hath been shewed, nothing but naturall decency, the omission of which is a vice contrary to that, by consequence, that there is no such thing, as an indifferent gesture or garment, which either civill or ecclesi∣asticall custome, or obedience to our lawfull Superiours may render decent; that what∣soever some e••ternall law of nature commands not the doing of that, if it be but wear∣ing such a garment, which the Canons of any Church prescribe, nay, by parity of reason a Cloak or a but on'd Doublet, is absolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. 14.40.

33. This being the bottome of those arguments of Amesius, I may safely tell Mr. J. that they could no otherwise beat either Bishop Morton or Dr. J. Burges out of the field, then that they thought them utterly unworthy their making reply's to; He that thinks the••e is nothing in different, nothing lawfull, the omission of which is not sinne, doth certainly use other Dictionaries then we do, discernes no difference betwixt lawfull and necessa∣ry and, as the Assertors of Fa••all production of all things, will not allow a cause to be sufficient to produce any effect, which it doth not produce, and so produce, that it cannot but produce it, which is to tell me that I sit, and walk at the very time, when I stand still, it being certain that I am equally able to doe both those, when yet I really doe the third only, so he will not allow any thing morally possible, which is not morally necessary which is certainly the giving new lawes to words (making the word lawfull or possible which was wont to be interpreted that which may or may not be done, to signifie only that which must be done, and may not be omitted) and not new reasons to confirme old paradoxes.

Jeanes.

In these three Sections I shall stay upon nothing but your charge of m•• and Amesius with this senslesse and irrational position, that nothing is indifferent; who almost that hath heard of your great parts, learning and ingenuity (and

who is there such a stranger in our Jsrael unto whose eares the same thereof hath not arrived) but wil upon this conclude us both guilty? whereas we are both free. & innocent, and most untruly aspersed by you, for which I expect & challenge sa∣tisfaction. Sir, herein I desi••e no favour at your hands, but shall intreat you to put any of our words upon the ra••ke, and if by all your Logick y••u can extort any such inference from them, I shall confesse my self worthy of all that disgrace which your pen can powre upon me To c••ea•• my self from this your impuration I have joyned herewi••h a Treatise concerning the indifferent actions of man; And as for Ames, his own writings will sufficiently acquit him in his Modul. Theolog. lib 2. cop. 3. thes. 13 he exprefly affirmeth that many acts in the generall a••e in their own nature indifferent, and in his Cases of Conscience he hath a whole chap∣ter de Adiaphor is and there too his resolution is, that var••e dontur ••ctiones quae in sua communi ac nuda natura antequam circamstant••s v••stiantur, nullam includum bonita∣tem aut ma••itiam. Taies sunt c••medere, bibere, iter facere, ambulare &c. lib. 3. cap. 18 There be divers actions which in their common and bare nature, before they be as it were cloathed with circumstances, doe include in themselves no goodness or badness; as to eat, to drink, to take a journey, to walk &c. Dr. J. Burges impureth unto Brad∣shaw his opinion, which you father upon Ames, and Ames his defence of Mr. B••adshaw will serve for his own apology. Dr. Burges saies th••t Mr. Bradsh••w h••d good reason to reverse his opinion ••f things indifferent, for against all learning and sense, he resolves that there is nothing indifferent, and unto this Ames thus answer∣eth T••••pli••at. cap. 2 S. 8, 9

If this were so as tis related, reason would per∣sw de to some reca••tation, but tis only the Bejoinder his telling again without any shew or proof. The Bejoynder raiseth up a report, without shewing from wh•••• h•• received it, which untill it be some other way confirmed, then by an adversaries bare telling and that in a humour of di••gracing his person, it most be accounted a meer tale. I for my part, can find no such word: in Mr. Brad∣shaw his treatise, neither any thing from whence such a raw sentence may be reasonably collected. He concludeth indeed cap. 3. that there is no absolute in∣different thing j. e. every way, a•• well in order of nature, as of moralitie. He affirmed also cap. 7 there is nothing actually indifferent, which is not po∣tentially good or evill, and cap. 8 there is no action of mans will so indiffe∣rent, but the d••ing thereof by some circumstances, may be evil. There is no action that a man can doe, by the power of his will, that is meerly and abso∣lutely indifferent. * 2.15 These passages come the nearest to that which is here father∣ed upon the treatise: in all which this crudity appeareth not: there is nothing indifferent. Nay the ha••shest of these assertions, may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Ca••pent••s Boyes, against learning and sense, but in great volumes, written by those that goe for very learned, and sensible in such matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great book called his Summe, prima secun∣de. q. ••8 r. 9 hath this conclusion: it must needs be that every individuall act of man (proceeding from del••herate reason) is either good or bad. And all (or almost all) those which have written upon that place, doe confi••••e and de∣fend th•• same, who yet were men, that in questions of such a nature, did not usually write against all learning and sense.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 34.

This argument of Amesins against things indifferent, that learned Bishop was well ac∣••••••••ted with, by his familiar conferences with Mr. Gla••thorn, a vehement disputer

against Ceremonies, and whom the Bishop thought fitter to refute by trifling instances, of unb••ttoning and buttoning his Cassock, than by more serious attempts of conviction. i. e. in plain rearms to despise and smile at, than to dread; and if Mr. J. have really read Mr. Hooker, whom he somewhere entitles our Patron of Ceremonies, hee may in him remember a discourse of Laws, which will supersede all necessity or benefit of my farther inlarging on it.

Jeanes.

Here we have a grosse mistake, and a bitter jeer.

1. A grosse mistake, to say no worse, for Ames hath no where any Argu∣ment against things indifferent; it is a Conclusion which he never dreame of, and therefore you most injuriously fasten it upon him, and hereof, I hope, you will repent, and give some publique restimonial thereof.

Next we have a bitter jeere at Non conformists, as if their opinion concern∣ing humane, religious Ceremonies, were so filly and ridiculous, that Bishop Morton despised it, and smiled at it, and could refute it easily, by trifling in∣stances by unbuttoning and buttoning his Cassock: There may be truth in this your relation concerning Mr. Hynde and Glapthorne, but your false accusation of Ames will render your bare word questionable, if it be not backed with farther proofs; but suppose your relation true, yet all that you can gather hence is, that they were weak Respondents, and knew not the state of the Question; and un∣to that you seem as great a stranger as they, for you dare not say that Bishop Mortons buttoning and unbuttoning his Cassock, was a religious Ceremony, and if it were not, was it not a proper medium to prove the lawfulnesse of humane re∣ligious Ceremonies?

The Non conformists layd downe four qualifications in the Ceremonies which they oppose: 1. Humane Institution. 2. Ordained signification. 3. My∣sticall signification. 4. Appropriation unto Gods solemne Worship and Service.

1. Humane Institution, they are humane inventions, now Kneeling, Bow∣ing, Prostrating, lifting up of the eyes and of the hands, shouting and dancing for joy, they absolutely deny to be humane inventions, as you may see in Ames his dispute about Ceremonies, pag. 495.

2. A second thing is ordained signification, though they have an aptnesse to signify, yet they doe not actually signifie, without special institution of man•• those signes then that signifie without institution by nature or by civil custome a•••• shut out of this controversie.

1. By nature, naturall Ceremonies as they are called, such as to looke up to Heaven, to lift up our heads, to bow our knees in prayer; for these Nature ••t self, saith Ames, doth teach all nations to observe without any institution, though not without some government of counsel, nor without such varle••••y, as Nature it self is sub∣ject unto. Manuduct unto disp about humane Ceremon. pag. 27.

2. By civil custome, and of this nature was the womans vail, 1 Cor. 11. By received use and ancient custome, it shewed the subjection of a woman unto the husband, and so was an indicant signe thereof without any new institution of man.

3. They are of mystical signification, they signifie either some grace or du∣ty, they teach some spiritual and religious thing by their instituted signification, and therefore are termed by some, doctrinal Ceremonies.

4. They are appropriated unto the acts of Religion in Gods service, and so are religious in state, and have, as Parker phraseth it, a kinde of immobility in Gods worship, and hereupon they are termed rel••gious Ceremonies, and by this all circumstances, or if you will call them circumstantial Ceremonies, all Ceremo∣nies of meere order and decency are excluded out of the controversie, because they are common to things civil as well as sacred, and used as well out of Gods worship, as in it.

Whereas Doctor Morton objecteth, that a Pulpit-cloath, Communion cup, the Church and place of Gods service it self, may be appropriated and assigned one∣ly unto Gods Worship: Ames for answer distinguisheth betwixt appropriation of this or that individual, and of the kinde;

Individuals (saith he) may be extrinsecally and accidentally appropriated, the kind remaining intrinsecally common and indifferent, and the individuals that are thus extrinsecally ap∣propriated, are of the same use out of Gods service that they are in it; this, saith Ames, is occasion of admiration unto Dr. Burges the Rejoinder, but hee might have considered, that the immediate end of a Cloath, is to cover; of a Cup, to drink out of; of Meeting places to meet in; and then where is the strangenesse of this assertion? Is there nor the same immediate use of a mans eyes, in reading one booke, as another, of a mans ears, in hearing one voice, as another, however the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kind?

This is a true state of the Question, made, not by me, but by Parker, Ames, Didoclave, and other learned Non-conformists long agoe: And now I hope you are sensible that Bishop Morton his buttoning and unbuttoning his Cassock, came not within many leagues of it; there is no doubt, but that either you have, or may easily procure a Cassock of the like stuffe and fashion, as that of the Bi∣shops; and why should not this fear be as feasible ••nto you as unto him? P••ay, Sir, try the utmost of your skill, and let all the Bishops in the Land bee your assistants; nay, take in what help you can from Mr. Hooker his discourse of Lawes that you referre mee unto, and if from the buttoning and unbutton∣ing of your Cassock, you can with all your united forces, prove the lawful∣nesse of humane religious Ceremonies, symbolical signes; that is, those which teach some things spiritual by their mystical instituted signification, and are appropriated unto Gods worship, I will then confesse that there is as miraculous a virtue in your Cassock, as you ascribe unto the sign of the Crosse in the Primi∣tive times, and shall be ready publiquely to terract whatsoever I have written, or spoken against these Ceremonies; but untill such proof be made, it will bee no act of imprudence in you to forbear for the future, such unsavoury girds; for however they bewray a passionate, high, and scornfull contempt of your poore Antagonists, yet upon examination they will be found to be saplesse and irra∣tional, to have in them nothing of truth, and as little of charity and humility.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 35.

Mean while, to the reproach of my great stupidity, I willingly acknowledge, that it cannot enter into my understanding, what sense that text is capable of, which with the best (possible) managery can be taught plainly to condemne all institution of Ceremo∣nies in the Church, i.e. by what Prosyllogismes or supplies, or advantages of art this Enthymeme shall be rendered concludent. The Apostle commands that all things be done

decently, and in order: ergo, he condemns all institution of Ceremonies for Gods wor∣ship. He that can maintain this consequence not onely to be true but (as Mr. J. affirms it) plain and evident, will be a formidable adversary indeed, much better deserving that title, than one whom he knows not, and therefore honours with it.

Jeanes.

Nothing hath more betrayed men to shamefull overthrows than contempt of Adversaries: what opened the King of Sweden so speedy a way unto his Victo∣ries, as the Emperours slighting of him? And I am confident that your despi∣sing of Ames, will adde nothing unto your conquests; it appears by your mi∣stake of him, that as yet, you never read him, and yet you have undertaken to censure and refute him, and in order hereunto have adventured upon uncharita∣ble conjectures or surmises that have proved ground lesse and to have no footing in his Writings; and now as for his Argument from the 1 Cor. 14. you elevate and deride it, before you know what it is, and thus you triumph over on enemy that you never yet looked in the face; but for your conviction, and the Rea∣ders satisfaction, I have prevailed with the Stationer for the Printing of the passages quoted in Ames, and unto them shall onely prefix this Preface; Let not him that girdeth on his harnesse boast himself, as hee that putteth it off, 1 King. 20.11.

Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies, 1 Cor. 14. which is acknowledged to be the onely place in all the New Testament, that can be alledged for their imposing. In Ames his Repl. to Mortons ge∣nerall Def. &c. pag. 9, 10, 11, 12.

This Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.26.40. being rightly understood, doth not onely not justifie such Ceremonies as ours, but plainly condemneth them. For the manifesting of which assertion, because it may seem strange to those eares that are accustomed to other sounds, I will here distinctly set down an Argument drawn out of these words, against such Ceremonies as ours are.

All that is left unto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods Worship, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifestly collected one of that place in question. So the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr understandeth it, as is to be seen in his Commentary upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by Dr. Whitaker de Font. pag. 841. & 844. confirmed also by Junius against Bellarmine, Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86, 87. & c, 17. n. 9, 10, 12, 13. where he sheweth that Christ is the onely Law giver, that appointeth things in his Church; and that he hath appointed all that are re∣quisite; and that the Church maketh no Laws (properly so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but onely Canons, Orders, Directions, ordering in seemly manner those things which Christ hath appointed; and that if she ad∣deth any thing of her own, shee doth de••line. The reason is because unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a Ministery to observe and doe such things which Christ hath appointed. Vide etiam Jun. de transl. imper. lib. 1. cap. 2. n. 26, 27.31. This is also confirmed by sound reason, both in respect of the wisdome required; and in all Law-makers, and perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such Institutions.

For the former reason teacheth (as Aristotle sheweth Rhet: 1.3) that all, which possibly may, should be appointed in the law, by the giver of it, and no∣thing left unto the ministeriall judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, &c. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstan∣ces of order, may easily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our Law∣giver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is above civility therein, if it be not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therefore invented by man, unlawfull will worship. For whatsoever is used, or acted by him that worshipeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations, and therefore civility: or an act and mean••s of worship, and therefore worship: or the or∣dering and manner of disposing those acts and meanes, and therefore lawfull, if lawfully and fitly applyed: or else, at the least, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉: A ••ift cannot be given. By all this it may appear, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indiffe∣rent, and say they be in order, or for order: But only to ••order those things which God hath appointed.

Thus farre the proposition, or first part of my Syllogisme: the assumption followeth.

But to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted. This appeareth

1. By the notation, which is given of the word it self, which both in Greek and Latine is taken from the ranking of Souldiers in certain bounds and limits of time and place. Dicebant enim militibus tribuni, hactenus tibi licet, hic consistes, eô progrediêre, huc revertere, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 inde ordo, Scalig and

2. By the definitions which are given thereof by Philosophers and Divines Tull. Off. lib. 1. Eadem vis videtur ordinis & collocationis. Ordinem definiunt com∣positionem rerum aptis & accommodatis locis. Locum autem actionis, opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis. Aug. de civit. lib. 15. cap. 13. Order is the disposition which fit places to things equall and unequall, id est, when things are handsomely ranked, some to goe before, and some to follow, as P. Martyr expoundeth it, loc. com. cl. 4. cap. 5.

3. The same also is confirmed by our Divines, who usually giving instances of order, doe insist in time, place, and such-like circumstances, making a difference betwixt mysticall ceremonies and order, many times condemning the one, and allowing the other: as the Divines of France and the Low Countries in their observations on the Harmonie of Confession. Sect. 17. Beza Ep. 8. Jun. in Bell. Append. tract. de cultu imaginum. c 7. n. 12, 13, 14.

4. By the Context of the Chap. viz. 1 Cor. 14. it plainly appeareth, that or∣der is opposed unto that confusion spoken of vers. 33. and therefore importeth thing but that peaceable proceeding, whereby they should speak one by one. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & the rest attend, &c. v. 30, 31. So Basil expoundeth it, shewing order to consist in sorting of Persons, some to this, and some to that, according to their office, and in determining of time and place, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. p. 459. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

and p. 530. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Lastly neither Luk. 1.8. neither in any place of Scripture doth ••he word order import any more then hath been said.

As for Comlinesse, that is nothing but the seemliness of order. For as P. Martyr saith in 1 Cor. 11 it is such a tempering of actions as whereby they may more fitly attaine their end Other where it may containe that naturall, or ci∣vill hand somenesse, which is spoken of chap. 11.13. as it doth chap. 12, 23 and so includeth all that which is grounded on civility, as a fair cloath and Cup for the Communion, a fair and firm vessell for Baptisme; but not the appointing of n••w mystical ceremonie, f••r then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches, which the Defend I think will not say: and then the Apostolick Ass••m••lies should have worsh••ped God uncomeli••y.

Thus we have both proposition and assumption of our argument, against the ceremonies, confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant choose as the only p••ace that could be brought for them. Now I hope we may adde the con∣clusion.

Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the li∣berty of the Church, i.e. it is unlawfull.

Concerning an argument against our Ceremonies, out of 1 Cor. 14. Which is acknowledged to be the only place in all the new Testament that can be alledged for their imposing. Ames in his dispute a∣bout humane Ceremonies pag. 57 us{que} pag. 81.

1. The Replyer, seeing that all the cause (on the imposers part) dependeth on this pla••e of Scripture, and finding nothing by any Logick could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to try if there may no••, from the same pla••e be formed a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and loosing the way, as if all the Def. his Retorti∣ons, and all the Rejoynder his paper sh•••• which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him to fly, •••• runne away, were new Hares and exorbi••ations. I know not else wha•• pr••••ledge he hath, to use a weight, and a weight, one for the Defend, with himself, and another for the Replyer.

2. The argument i•• thus put together by the Rej pag. 77 All that is left un∣to the Churches liberty, in things pertaining to Gods worship, is to order them in comely ••anner: But to appoint and use the Ceremonies, as we doe, is not to order in comely manner any things pertaining to Gods worship•• Therefore, to appoint and use the Ceremonies, as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull. The Rejoynder answereth first to the proposition, and then to the assumption, but so as he mingleth both toge∣ther, in many words: Yet I will follow his order.

3. First of all he denyeth the proposition to be sound in the Repl his meaning. But I can see no reason of his deniall.

1. He saith, that the order, and ordering is taken sometimes largely, for all discipline or policie; somtimes strictly, for ranking of persons, and actions handsomely, one before, and another after, and so is opposed only to confusion,

as in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. Now this is farre from overthrowing the pro∣position, in the Repl. his meaning: for the Repl. meant order in the strict se se, which maketh also for his purpose; And this the Rej. granteth to be the meaning of the Apostle in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. Which place the same Rej. pag. 57. confesseth to be the only place (in the New Test) by which po∣wer is given to the Church to constitute Ceremonies: from both which ••aid to∣gether, it necessarily followeth, that all which is left to the Churches power under the title of order is ordaining in the strict sense, i. e. ranking of Per∣sons and Actions handsomely, as the Rejoind. expoundeth it. Yet immedi∣ately after he accuse••h the Repl, for saying order to be the right placing and dis∣posing of things, in tituted for time, place, &c, not shewing why he disliketh him, or wherein differeth from his own expectation. Only he saith that &c often by the Rep. put to time and place, is a blind. Which is not so, for by &c. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as Number, Mea∣sure, vicissitude &c. How many Psalmes shall be sung, or Chapters read, what and how much Scripture shall be at this or that Assemblie expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another &c. without a blind.

4. In the next place, the Rejoynd findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phrase (in comely manne••) because afterward, in the end of he Assumption, he saith that, Comeliness is the Seemliness of order. For (saith the Rej.) beside that Comeliness of order, there is other Comeliness. Now this the Replier p••ofesseth immediately after the words quoted; otherwhere Comeliness may contain all natural and civil handsomeness &c. Neither will I contend about this, but it implyeth so much in this very place; so that the Rejoynd hath not given any reason, why the Proposition or first part of the argument should not be admitted. Yet after that he hath father'd it upon Mr. Jac••b, and made the Repl. his disciple, he commeth to examine the proofes of i••, though he himself (as is now shewed) hath given sufficient assent unto all contained therein.

5. The First proofe is, that it is manifestly collected out of the place in question, 1 Cor 14. and the Defend. seemeth to grant as much. To which the Rejoynd, answer••th.

1. That in that place three distinct things are propounded, Edification, De∣cency, Order: And these three cannot be one. But Edification being the end, Decency and Order the meanes, they may well be contained in one: decent or∣der tending to Edification, or (which is as much to our purpose) in two; Decency and Order for Edification. A holy Sacrament decently, and orderly admi••istred, for Edification, is not four distinct things, but one.

His Second is, that these words are the conclusion of the whole Tract: be∣ginning at the Eleventh Chapt. wherein are handled some things only concern∣ing decency, some more properly pertaining to Edification, and some which belong more peculiarly to Order, Ergo more is commanded in th••se words, than the comely placing of one thing after another. Let this be granted, yet I followeth not that more is left unto the Churches liberty, than order and de∣c••nc•• unto Edification; for all things that are commanded, are not left unto ••he Chu••ches liberty.

But that speaking in unknown tongues, which the Rejoynd. doth referre to Edification, is distinct from order and decency is by good Divines accoun∣ted to offend against the order, and decency, spoken of chap. 11. and 40. So Dr. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknown

tongue in Gods service, out of the very pl••ce: pugnat hoc vero cum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quam maxime, 1 Cor. 14.40. i. e. this mightily overthrows that good order which h•• so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend. doth no way seem to g••ant the proposition; because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands, But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. doe not agree about the proposition, though t••ey diffent about the place, as it is handled in the assumption. The Papists grant us this Propo∣si••••••n: No Ph••as•• is used by Christ in these words, This is my body, but a Sa∣c••amental one: Yet because they deny the assumption; transubstantiating words are not a Sacramental phrase, wee undertake by argument to re∣scue this place out of their hands. So the Def requiring no more, than order and decency unto Edification, to be left unto the Churches liberty, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Churches liberty is order and decency unto Edification, though hee deny these to contain no more then meere circumstances, which is the assumption: Of Edification there is not mention made in the proposition, because tha••, as an end, is out of question, and alwayes included.

6. Peter Martyr is cited out of D. Whitaker De Pontif. pag. 841. 844. As a∣greeing with that which the Repl. would have, Here the Rej. inlargeth him∣self much for the sake (as he saith) of those that are unlatined.

He telleth us P. M. doth distinguish, though not divide, comelinesse from order, which we do also, for take the Repl. his words in the most rigorous sense you can, yet comelinesse of order, doth distinguish comelinesse from or∣der, no lesse than comelynesse of a man doth distinguish it from a man.

2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doth there instance in the Ceremony of thrice dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremony, Observation, Institution of Feasts, which the Rej. hath set down in a differing letter, to be noted as P. M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P. M. but are added by the Rej. for advan∣tage. P. M expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances, by what place, what time, what manner. If therefore the Repl. did not look upon that place, but took it on trust, from the trusty hand of D. Whitaker (as the ••ej object∣ed to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that ••he Re•• forgetteth him∣self much, when upon this uncertain, and momentlesse conject••re, he compa∣reth the Repl. to a hungry creature (or dog) that run••e••h away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alledged some testimonies on trust; and therefore, being challenged for them, hee confessed, that he•• had ••hem from Mr. Stock Yet the Popish adversary (author of the sober reckoning) did not compare him to dogge, but onely said, that hee sent to stock and stones for satisfaction about them. Which I doe not alledge to the disparagement of either D. M. o•• M. St. but onely to shew by comparison how the ••ej. doth sometime over flow in his terms.

3. For D Whitaker, he telleth ••s, that hee onely saith, that Ecclesiastica. Laws belong onely to order, or ordering, but not as it is distinct from come¦linesse. As if any of us did so. The Repl his words; ordering in comely man∣ner, doe not (I hope) referre all to order, considered apart from all come∣linesse.

This is the full summe of all that the Rejoind, had to except against the

first allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse, not onely the Repl. but these men, of haughtie and magistral fashions, gulling, and deceiving, great and shamefull sinne, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honesty. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guess, at what? 6. For more mani∣festation of the Repl. his vacuity of common honesty, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimony out of Junius against Bell. Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86, 87. and cap. 17. n. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.

Omitting therefore unnecessary repetition, let us hear the reasons of extra∣ordinary dishonesty.

1. Junius cap 16 n. 86, 87. saith onely first, that those humane Laws are on∣ly necessary in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done de∣cently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.

2. That these are improperly called Laws in the Church, being more pro∣perly Constitutions., or Canons.

Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Junius did judge the Apostle left no more to the Churches liberty, than to order Gods Ordinances in decent manner: And out of the second he inferred the same conclusion; because any constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which be∣fore was injoyned, is properly a Law. What extraordinary dishonesty is here?

2. Junius c. 17. n. 9. saith onely, that to make new Laws in divine things, is to decline, i. e. in points of Faith, or necessary rules of Sanctimony. But Iunius maketh no mention at all, either of Faith or Sanctimony, or Necessity, nor Bell. himself in that place. Neither is the question there handled of points of Faith, or things absolutely necessary to Sanctimony. All double, treble Ceremonies reductively Sacramentall, and Worship, are by the Rej. his owne dictates double sacred; and that is it which Iunius meaneth by divine.

3. Bell. saith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of Laws contrary to the Law of God: Whereunto Junius, n. 10. answereth, that any Laws at all, ad∣ded to Gods Laws, are contrary to the Law of God, speaking of proper Laws, without any backing of Gods Law, binding the conscience, as he sheweth, cap. 16. n. 86.8.

Here 1. the Rejoind. left out those words of Iunius, neither contrary nor beside the word; which if he had transtated, then the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for defence of that phrase, was but shifted by the Rejoind. pag 42.

2. It is to be marked that the Def. and Rej. their answer unto Deut 4. is the same with Bell. pag. 134.

3. That exposition of Laws without backing, is of the Rej. his own forg∣ing. No such thing is found in the places quoted, nor yet did Bell. professe to defend any such thing. Of binding the conscience, enough hath been said in the head of difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.

4. Iunius n. 12. answering to Bellarmine his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave onely the common Laws of Faith and Sacram. leaving the specials to the Church, &c. affirmeth Gods Laws to be perfect re, ratione & modo, and those of the Church to be but Canons and disposings of conveniency, for better obser∣ving of divine Laws.

Where note 1. an example of an &c. for a blind, or blinding, which the

Rejoynd. formerly told of, for in that &c. is cortained, pro locor••m, & tempo∣rum diversitate: quia non possunt diver sissimi populi convenire in iisd••m legibus & ri∣tibus. i. e. for this cause, speciall lawes of rituall things, are left to the Churches liberty, because of variety, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places, which is the very thing that the Rejoynd. pawned his credit, Bell. ne∣ver said, pag. 15, 16. Note also, Secondly, that Junius doth not in this place mention Canons, as the Rejoynd, pleaseth to alter his words in reciting of them; But cautions and dispositions. Now a caution about the performance of any thing, is not an institution of a new thing. 3. Jun. is found to say as much as he was alledged for, and to the contrary we have from the Rejoynd. an hil di••it.

5. Junius n. 13. saith only that Christ is the only Law giver, that is, to give lawes, that in themselves and by the very authority of the law maker, do bind the conscience. As if Junius in confuting of Bell. did only say the very same thing with him, that he goeth about to consute; for Bellarmine, in that very place saith: Christ is the che••fe law giver, who by his own authority can judge and make lawes.

Now out of all these allegations, the Rejoynd. maketh his interrogatories.

1. Where be these words, all that is requisite as spoken of Rites and Cere∣monies? Answer, the sense of these words, as spoken of all Ceremonies above meer order and decency, is cap. 16, 28.

2. Where find you in Junius that the Church may constitute no new thing? Ans. cap. 17. n. 9. this in things divine is to turne aside: for the Rejoynd. his interpretation of those words, that they mean points of faith, and necessa∣ry rules of Sanctimony, is confuted by conference of Bellarmines words there opposed, who in that place instanceth in Ceremoniall and Judiciall lawes, and speaketh not at all of faith and necessary Sanctimony?

3. Where are these words, Ordering in seemly manner. Ans. cap. 16. n. 86. those only humane lawes are necessary in the Church, which make that all things be done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.

4. If the Church may appoint no new things, but only see to decency and order, then saith the Rejoynd. what Patent hath she to make particular ordi∣nances for time and place? unlesse they be no new things. I ans.

1. Time and place considered as meer occasional circumstances, are no more new things in Gods service, then concreated time and place, were new things in creation, distinct from the created world. And Calvin ins••it. l. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 22. severely censureth those, that call such times of determinations new lawes: Quis nisi ••a••umniator, sic novam fer••i ab iis legem dicat, quos constant dun∣taxat scandalis occurrere, quae sunt a domino satis diserte prohibita? if procuring that scandals be avoided, be no new thing, then neither is procuring that dis∣order, and undecency, for time, place, &c. be avoided, any new thing.

As for a Patent to appoint double, treble, sacred ceremonies, it is a vain thing for them to plead it, that cannot shew it under the great Seal. I do not think that any earthly King would have his subjects submit themselves to that power, which is fetched out of a patent, invisible and only avouched by conjectures.

7. A reason was given of the foresaid proposition, out of Jan. de Transl. Imp. l. 1. c 2. n. 26, 27, 31, viz. that the Church hath only a ministry, to ob∣serve such things as Christ hath appointed, not authority of appointing new

things. Here the Rej. 1. observeth, that those words (new things) have no footsteps in Junius; As if new things could be appointed lawfully without authority of appointing; and leaveth only ministeriall performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new things. 2 He argeeth thus, if the Church have a ministery to appoint and doe such things as Christ hath com∣manded, then must she needs have a commission legative, to appoint and use rites, serving to order and decency. Adde to this only, and then it is not only that, but all that which we require. 3. He c••yeth out of miserable perversion, ei∣the•• by grosse negligence, or mistaking. And why so I pray? because forsooth all that Junius saith is good to prove, that no Ecclesiasticall person hath any po∣wer by his calling over temporall Princes. But this is nothing against their delegated dependant power, by commission: But First, these are very strange distinctions: they have not any power by their calling, but some by com∣mi••••ion. They have not any power over temporall Princes (though they be members of the Church) but over the Church they have.

2. The Rejoynd▪ maketh Junius only to deny that, which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiasticall persons, as supreme Lords. Nay Bellarmine answereth to Calvin in ••he very same manner that the Rejoynd. do••h: The Pope is not the chei•• law giver but the Vicar of Christ, and by Christs authority maketh lawes.

3. He add••th, that Junius d••••p. de trad. distinguisheth betwixt decency, and the seemliness of order alone.

As if this were the main question, or any part of the Proposition, or de∣nyed by the Repl▪ at all. The Rejoynd, having little to say that was to pur∣pose, catcheth hold of one word in the end of the Assumption used by the Repl. seem••inesse of order (which yet is immediately there differenced from other decency, as well commanded as this) and that he maketh the main mat∣ter of the proposition: whereas the meaning is, that nothing is left unto liber∣ty in Gods worship, above decency and order, for which these testimonies are brought, and not for the other.

8. For more full support of the foresaid proposition, a reason is added, from the f••llnes of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto ministerial judges, then needs must. For answer, the Rejoynd. 1. Observeth that some cases are of necessity variable, and so left. So the occasions of different ri••es, and Ceremonies are so various, that if ou•• Lord had fixed any one certain fashi∣on, he should have made rather snares then lawes for his Church. As if he had appointed sitting at the table in a communion: or kneel••ng in prayer. This is strange stufle. 1. So much is granted, as is desired, viz. that God ha••h left nothing (about his worsh••p) undetermined in his word, i.e. uncommand∣ed, and unforbidden particulary, save only that which he could not command or forbid: Now let any man think, and judge, whether it had not been possi∣ble for God in his word, either to have commanded, or forbidden the signing of those that are baptized with the signe of the Crosse as well, as baptizing of them with water? •• How can that too too bold and inconsiderate asser∣tion be excused: if our Lord had fixed (or Commanded) any one certain fa∣shion of Ceremonies, he had made rather snares then lawes for his Church. If it had pleased God to command, or forbid the signe of the Crosse in par••icu∣lar, what snare had it been? When God appointed all the Ceremonies of the Old Testament, he did not I hope make snares for his Church, though he did lay a burden upon it, 3. Whereas the Rejoynd, maketh sitting at a table, in the

Lords-Supper, and kneeling at Prayer, to be such things as the Lord could not command, but as snares, because sometime a Table may bee wanting, or something to si•• on, or ability to sit; and so of Kneeling: this is as poor a snare to catch any man of understanding in, as one shall lightly see made. For 1. many affirmative Commandements of God there are, which in extraordinary cases cannot bee fulfilled, and cease to bind, as praying unto, and praising of God with our voice; which is no snare to him that cannot speak.

The appointing of Wine for the Supper, is no snare, though some Coun∣tries have it not, and some men cannot well drink it. See Beza Ep. 2. Pareus and Symb. Sacram. lib. 1. cap. 9.2. I would know, whether it had been a snare if God had appointed sitting at the Table with exception of such extraordinary cases? if yea, then much more when men appoint kneeling, surplicing, and crossing; if no, then our argument may proceed.

Kneeling in publique prayer might have been appointed without snaring, as appearing before the Lord thrice in the year, was appointed to every Male in Israel, Deut. 16.16. For (without doubt) many men in Israel, were, by accident more unable to travel up to Ierusalem, then any Christian that hath knees, is to kneel.

After this observation, of which the Rej▪ saith it may be as wee will, he an∣swereth, that our Lord hath left nothing absolute to the will of his Officers; but hath left even ambulatory Rites, under generall rules, which will tye them as perfectly, as if every one had been named and with lesse cumber.

1. But this is nothing to the purpose; because so the imperfectest Law that is in any Nation upon the earth, if it be worthy the name of Law, leaveth no∣thing so absolute to the will of inferiour Officers, as that it should be without the general rules of Justice, common good, &c. nay not without the rules of order and decency.

2. Concerning the comparison of perfection, betwixt generall and parti∣cular rules, though enough hath been said before, upon like occasion, yet this I will adde.

If he meaneth, that a general rule, if it be perfectly understood and applyed, doth as perfectly tye as particulars▪ I grant it to be a truth. And so was the Old Testament as perfect a rule of Christian Faith as the New, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour, as perfect as the six of the second Table. But if hee meane, that a generall rule is as fit and full for the direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, then I think no man conscious of humane frailty, wil beleeve him.

Neither doe I beleeve, that he himself is so fully perswaded in crossing the baptized, by any rule which he hath out of Gods word for that, as hee is for baptizing by the rule of that.

The ••epl. having (as he thought) sufficiently grounded the generall, that a perfect Law leaveth nothing more then needs must unto inseriour officers, goeth on to assume, that in the worship of God, all, but particular circumstan∣ces of order, might easily be (as indeed they were) appointed by Christ, and therefore need not be left to the Churches wisdom. Upon this it pleaseth the Rej. to say little to the purpose, in many words.

1. He saith, that circumstances of order were not harder to determine than those of decency. Now it is plaine enough that the Repl, here, naming order, did also understand decency, though he named order only.

2. He asketh, what School of Divinity hath taught the Repl. to say, that our Lord forbore the determining of such circumstances, because all else was easie? I answer, no rule of Divinity did ever teach the Repl. to say so, nor yet the Rejoinder to impute unto him, what he never said.

But if he meaneth (as it seemeth he doth) because it was not so easie to de∣termine circumstances of time and place, as real worship.

I then answer, that this (as I think) the Replyer learned out of that Divi∣nity School, out of which the Def. and Rejoinder learned. That which they cite out of Calvin, pag. 15, 16. Junius is cited to the contrary out of Cont. 3. l. 4. cap. 17. n. 12. (which place the Rejoinder looked upon by occasion of the Replyer his former citation of it) But he in that very place, distinguisheth be∣twixt Laws, properly so called, and cautions, leaving onely cautions to the Churches liberty, which is the very same that the Repl. meaneth. The plaine truth is, that supposing Gods will to be, we should worship him in any place, and at any time fitting, it was necessary, that the particular choice of fitting time & place, should be left undetermined to any particular time, or place, ex∣clusively. Calvin also is cited, as more comely, expressing the cause to be, that Christ would not, than that he could not determine such matters.

Now though Calvin, being so excellent in his expressions may easily be granted to have expressed the same meaning in more comely manner than the Repl. Yet here was no cause of noting disparity: For the Repl in saying, all things but particular order and decency may bee easily appointed, did not say what Christ could doe, but what might be easily for us appointed, or with our ease, or with the ease which we doe conceive of in Law giving, or of an ordinary Law-giver, having such authority as Christ had. And who doth not see, that it is not so easie, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherein God shall be worshipped, throughout all the world, as with that worship he shall bee served? For that particular description, a thousand books, so great as our own Bible, would not have sufficed.

The world (as Iohn saith) would not bee capable of the volumes that must have been written. The Rej. himself, pag. 89. ••elleth us of cumber, and much ado, that would have been, in naming every particular, and is not this as much as lesse easie? yet it pleased him to seek matter of altercation about this phrase, and that (which agreeth not) in mediately after he had, without reason, ac∣cused the Repl. of picking quarrels, pag. 88.

10. A second reason of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and decency, is worship: Because whatsoever is acted by him that worshippeth, in that act. beside ordinary civility, must either ••ee an act or means of worship, or an orderly decent disposing of those acts, or else at the least idle, and so unlawfull. The Rej. answereth 1. that a significant Ceremony for Edification is lawful; yet cometh not under any of those heads. But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremony instituted of God, to be essen∣tial worship, and instituted of man to bee worship, though not in it selfe: of which distinction enough hath been said in the head of Worship: Yet this by the way: A significant ceremony for edification is the same in it selfe, by whomsoever it be instituted, because institution is extrinsecal to the thing in∣stituted, and alters it not in it self, internally. If therefore it be essentiall law∣full worship, in it selfe, when it is instituted by God, it is also essentiall (though not lawfull) worship, in it self, when it is instituted by man. Be∣side

that Ceremony whose proper sole end is edification toward God, is properly done to the honour of God, and so properly divine worship.

2. His answer is, that comeliness grounded on civil humane considerations, is not meere civility, in sacred actions and use, but sacred by application. Which is very true, if civil application be meant by meer civil; but then it is nothing to the purpose. For sacred by application is seemly clothing, put on for to goe to Church in, and yet is in it self meere civil. The Question is not of application, but of internal nature. Sacred things applid to civill busines, doe not therefore become civill; for who will say, that prayer, at the begin∣ning of a Parliament, is a civil act, though it were used in the upper and low∣er house, and applied to that civil meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall the application of civil decency unto sacred busines, make it alter the nature or name of it?

3. His answer is that all meanes of worship are not worship. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper meanes of worship.

His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing is ill divided from comeliness. Neither did the Repl. intend so to divide, but rather to conjoyne them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comeliness. But if the Rej. had not catched up some shew of confounding comeliness with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a losse.

His fift and last answer is, that by Basils leave somethings in themselves, may, and sometimes must be tolerated. But he should have remembred, that the question here is not of tolerating, but of appointing and using.

Now if it be lawfull, to appoint and use empty and unprofitable Ceremoni∣es in Gods worship, let those worshipers judge, that tremble at the majest•• of God▪ and are afraid in any manner to appear empty, and unprofitably before hi•• Nay (to passe by our Divines) let the Papists themselves judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. Co••fesseth those Ceremonies to be forbiden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vain precepts, unprofitable and f••ivolous Ceremonies, only by humane spirit invented. And de Effect. Sacrament. l. 2. c. 32. empty and good for nothing, more then needs, and not a jot tending to a∣ny Godliness, and who not?

11. Thus farre concerning the proposition of our argument: the assump∣tion followeth, which is this: To appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to Gods worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things formerly instituted.

The Rejoynd, answers 1. That order requireth new time, place and measure: which is a Sophistrie in the proposition before abused, and confuted.

2 His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comeliness, requireth the institution of such formalities, as shall be sutable to the dignity, and variety of divine actions. Where the terme formalities is not so formall, that a man may spie in it the difference it hath from other things: the Rejoynder in his Manuduc. pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishops Rochets, &c. even as they are di∣stinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the hearse in their formalities, the Clarkes in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to meane some Ceremonies of State, and dignity: of which kind neither Crosse, not surplice is any. How∣soever the ordering of one thing, doth not require another new thing, but on∣ly disposing of that one. For if it did, then that new thing (because that also

must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered without an infinite heape of new things.

As for the dignity of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicity, not with outward shewes of dignity, invented by man. The womans ordinary vail was mo••e sutable to the dignity of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with Gold, and pretious Stones. Pauls plain Cloak was more suitable, then the cheifest Cope in all Rome. If order requi∣reth outward shewes of dignity, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches a mirable example of religious order; for the Councill of Tient Sess. 22. professeth their Masse Ceremonies to be invented, that the majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.

12. To shew further that order requireth not such Ceremonies as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no such thing. Now the Rejoynd, granteth, that originally the word doth not containe within the compasse of it, such kind of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true; but helpeth not, Except the Def. or Rejoynd. whose princi••all ar∣gument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place the word order is extended beyond his originall signification. He will not therefore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order saith he, in this place signify no more then placing. But he ma∣keth his retreat to the word Comelinesse; asking if comelinesse be nothing? I answer yes, it is something; but the Repl. did not insist on that word, because he took the force of the Def. his argument from this place, principally to lie upon order.

But seeing the Rejoynder hath given up Order, I will adde a word or two concerning Comeliness.

I take this for granted, that seing the Rejoynder confesseth order here to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that decency, in the same place and sentence, is to be ta∣ken in strict signification, as opposed only to the vice of undecency. Now hence it followeth that decency requireth nothing, but that which is hecessary to the avoiding of undecency.

I ask therefore if undecency in Gods worship cannot be avoided, without double, treble, sacred, significant Ceremonies, of mans inventing? If nor, then the Apostles did much forget themselves, in their publick worshiping of God, before men had invented such Ceremonies; for that is no answer which the Rejoynd. after giveth; all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of comelinesse. All Churches are bound to avoid undecency and to doe that which decency requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decency doth not require such kind of Ceremonies.

Neither doth it indeed, any more then order. So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is when the service of God is performed with convenient and fit circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture: and here of the A∣postle speaketh 1 Cor. 14.40. The plain simple truth, without Cere••oniall affectation, is, that decency is (in this place) nothing but good civil fash••••n, agreeable not only to worship, but also to any grave assembly. Decency (saith Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, sports, riot: it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizards of fond Ceremonies. &c.

I dare appeal to D. B. his conscience, if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse, as with it,? and publick prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let conscience here speak, and the Rejoynde: harken∣ing unto it, will (without all doubt) confesse, that decency in this place doth no more require either Crosse or Surplice, then order, and that both of them together doth no more require those Ceremonies, then a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denyed unto them.

To this purpose Mr. Attersall, in his second book of the Sacrament, chap. 5. saith well: if they referre all this trash and trumpery (of hamane Ceremontes in Baptisme) to order and comeliness, as Hosius doth, do they not thereby blas∣phemously accuse the Baptisme of John, and of the Apostles of uncomelinesse and disorder? whereas the comeliness and dignity of the Sacraments is to be e∣steemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicity of the Gospell, and by the practice of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, de∣cent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments; thereby inverting and perver∣ting the holy Ordinances of God.

12. The received definitions of order, are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the Rejoynder yeildeth so much as they import, viz. that order in strict signification doth not imply such Ceremonies as ours.

He must therefore either prove, that in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. that word is not taken strictly, which he himself formerly granted, or give up the place, which is (by his own confession) the only place of all the New Testament, for warran••ing of such Ceremonies, or flie to decency, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as ha••h been shewed.

Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Rejoynd. his answer unto this argument (where our divines are observed, to distinguish order and decency, from mysticall Ceremonies, the context of the Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. is declared to respect n•• mysticall Ceremonies, the Phrase of Scripture is shewed to con∣sent) nothing (I say and the Reader may see) is added; but only the same things are ••epeated about order, and decency which are now sufficiently discussed.

So the Rejoynder hath nothing to say to the contrary, but that we may safely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawfull.

If there were nothing else against them, in all the Scripture, then this place, besides which the Defend, and Rejoynd can find none in all the New Testa∣ment for them, any indifferent man would say they are not allowed.

Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies may shuffle up and down, first to O••der, and when they are beaten thence, to Decency, and from decency, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the Rejoynd. doth: But all will not help. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawn my Head, their A••••hor will come home to them again, as finding noe fast ground either in Order, Decency, or Edification, for double significant Ceremonies (such as o••rs) to ride at. The Defend, could frame no consequence out of any of these words, the Rejoynd, saith there is one, but he cannot shew it. To the contrary consequence, nothing is answer∣ed of any moment.

And is not this a miserable cause, which hath no place in all the N. Testa∣ment▪

which the best Advocates can alledge for it, but only that, out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend, and Rejoynders maintaining such a cause, this testimony may be given that they would willingly, so farre as they can, favour things which the times favour, and therefore strive to make something of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former section, when Order, Decency, and Edification, should have been hand∣led as rules, according to the title of the digression, the Rejoynder sud∣dainly breaketh off, referring them to a fitter place. Now here in this place, he was constrained to touch upon them, but so softly, and spa∣ringly, that it appeareth he found this no fitter place then the former, for those reserved Considerations. When shall we come to the fitter place?

By this I hope the Reader is satisfied, that there is more in Ames his Argu∣ment than you imagined, and thinks that you had no reason to slight it before you had seen it. I will readily acknowledge that you are fa••e his superiour for your incomparable skill in Critical learning and Antiquity, and all the world would account me a fool to say or think otherwise, but I hope it is no blas••he∣my to say, that hee was not much your inferiour for Logick, Philosophy, and Scholastical Divinity; in which latter, hee was n••ore versed than most of our Protestant Writers: Comparisons I know are odious, bu•••• Apologize for a dead man, and therefore I hope I shall be held excused: Indeed his memory ••••ght to be precious with mee; for though I dissent from him in some things, yet I must needs confesse, that in my first study of Divinity, I most profited by him: I have often found in a few words of his that satisfaction, which I in vaine searched for in more voluminous discourses. I know that hee hath been contemned by many, but it hath been by Learned men that never read him, or by ignorant Readers that never understood him; and indeed unto those that have not made some tolerable progresse in Philosophy, he will be in many places un∣intelligible; for he studied brevity, and for that p••rpose, frequently made choice of scholastical expressions: He lived and dyed an exile for his dislike, and opposition of our Ceremonies; and the Bishops were not contented to have hunted him from his Native soyl, but pursued him beyond the Seas; for they engaged King James to command the then English Ambassadour at the Hague to sollicite against his employment in the Netherland Universities, and he prevai∣led with the States Generall to exclude him from Leyden, where otherwise hee had been received as a Professor; but making the like attempt at Franeker, the motion was rejected as unchristian and uncharitable, with some tart reflexions upon the Bishops malice. This I have received from a very good hand, one of his Scholars, that heard it from his own mouth: But I returne from this di∣gression.

Upon the review of this Section I find, what you say of Ames his Argument for condemning of the Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 14. may with better reason bee applyed unto Bishop Mortons medium for justifying of them, and with your leave, Mutatis mutandis, I shall apply it thereunto: To the reproach of my great stu∣pidity, I willingly acknowledg, that it cannot-enter into my understanding what sense his buttoning and unbuttoning of▪ his Cassock is ca••able of▪ which with the best possible ma∣nagery can be taught plainly to justifie humane institution of religious mystical Ceremonies in the Church appropriated unto Gods worship, ••e. by what Prosyllogismes or supplies, or advantages of art, this Enthymeme shall be rendered concludent. Bishop Morton but∣toned

and unbuttoned his Cassock, therefore it is lawfull for Church gover∣nours to invent and devise Symbolical Ceremonies, that is, those which teach things spiritual by their mystical signification, and appropriate them unto Gods worship. He that can maintain this consequence to be not onely true, but plain and evident, will be a formidable adversary indeed, as formidable an adversary as ever put pen to paper; and if you cannot maintain this Consequence, the terror of your name wil with me in great part vanish, as touching argumentation; When the Spaniards came first into America, the inhabitants thought them to be immortall, but when they had once taken some of them, they put their heads under water, and there kept them untill they had drowned them, and this soon altered their opinion: knowing your vast abilities, I looked upon you as a very formidable adversary, and expected from you very terrible arguments; but your arguments for the Ceremonies I have taken, and I thinke ch••ked them with sa••isfying answers, and therefore you are not in this controversy so formidable an adversary as at first I thought you; but I impute this to the b••dnesse of your cause, and not to any defect in your abilities.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 36.

His third and last impression now remaines, wherein he undertakes to prove by three arguments, that custome is not the only rule of decency; and his first argument is, be∣cause the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency. To this I answer, that in those things, whereof alone he knowes I there speak in the Sect: concerning uniformity, i.e. in things indifferent, gestures, and other Ceremonies in Gods service, the law of na∣ture is no rule at all: and I suppose he cannot think, I am sure he pretends not to prove, or so much as affirme it is, and therefore though not simply in all sortes of things, of which I speak not, nor can by any rules of discourse be supposed to have spoken, yet as to the matters then before me, wherein Ecclesiastick conformity consisted, custome, and only custome was the rule of decency.

Jeanes.

1. I had no reason to imagine that your words were to be restrained unto things indifferent, gestures and other Ceremonies in Gods service, for you undertook to give us the importance of the Apostles words: Let all things be done decently, and the Apostles words reach unto even naturall decency, now of that the light of nature is a rule.

2. There be, as Bel••armine rightly lib. 2. de effectu sacramentor. cap. 29. some Ceremonies, which receive their institution as it were from nature it self, which may be called naturall Ceremonies, as to looke up to Heaven, to lift up our hands, to bow our knees, and knock our breasts when we pray unto God: Quaedam Caerem••niae sunt ab ipsa natura quodammodo institutae, quae naturales dici possunt, quale est respicere in coelum, tollere manu••, flectere genua, tundere pectus, eum Deum oramus; i•••• a enim natura ipsa docet, unde et••am communes sunt Gentilibus & quibuscunque sectis.

3. Those Ceremonies which we oppose, symbolicall Ceremonies, such as the Crosse and Surplice, are not things indifferent, because they are imposed and used as parts of Gods worship, and no worship of God is indiffe∣rent.

4. Suppose that I concurred with you in holding the questioned Ceremonies to be lawfull, yet I should deny Custome to be the onely rule of their Decency, and that because the light and Law of Nature, right Reason is a rule thereof too. My argument I shall thus re••enforce; If Custome be in the Ceremonies of Gods service, the only rule of Decency, then nothing else can be a rule thereof besides Custome; but this is false; for the light and law of Nature is also a rule there∣of: therefore in the Ceremonies of Gods service Custome is not the onely rule of Decency.

The sequele of the Major is evident from what Logicians say concerning, first, the exposition, secondly, conversion, and thirdly, consecution of exclusive propo∣sitions.

1. Concerning the exposition of them, Propositio exclusiva subjecti affirmativae exponitur per duas exponentes, quarum prima est affirmata, & appellatur praejacens, estque nihil alind quam propositio exclusiva, dempto signo exclusivo: & secunda est negativa de subjecto exclusivè infinitato, vel negato. This exclusive proposition then in the Ce∣remonies of Gods service, Custome is the only rule of Decency, must be expoun∣ded by these two.

1. By an Affirmative: in the Ceremonies of Gods service, Custome is a rule of Decency: And then

2. Negative: whatsoever is not Custome, that is not in the Ceremonies of Gods service a rule of Decency.

2. Concerning the conversion of them, Propositio exelusivae subjecti affirmativa convertitur in universalem affirmativam de transpositis terminis. The Doctors pro∣position then, Custome in the Ceremonies of Gods service, is the onely rule of Decency, is converted into this Universall Affirmative, every rule of Decency is Custome.

Well, upon this premised concerning the exposition and conversion of exclusive propositions, Logicians lay down concerning the consecution of them this rule: Ab exclusiva ad exponentes propositiones itemque ad universalem conversam bona est consequentia: By this rule then it will follow, that if Custome in the Ceremonies of Gods service be the only rule of Decency, that then in them nothing but Cu∣stome is the rule of Decency, and that every rule of Decency is Custome. The Major then is fortified beyond all exception.

The Min••r I shall confirme by instancing in the light or law of Nature, right reason, this to joyn issue with you, would bee in the controverted Ceremonies of Gods service, if they were lawfull, a rule of Decency.

For first, what is the end of a rule but to regu••ate and direct? now the light and law of Nature regulates all gestures and Ceremonies in Gods worship, as touching their Decency.

2. It is in these particulars not only a rule, but a principall rule of Decency, by which all Customes are to be tryed, examined, and regulated.

For the confirmation of this I shall adde three reasons.

1. Gestures, Ceremonies agreeable unto Custome may be found to be dissonant unto the light and law of Nature, and to be rejected as undecent.

2. Custome is not the rule of decency unlesse it have the force of a Law, and that it cannot have, say the School-men, rightly, unlesse it be rationabilis, and such it cannot be, unlesse it be agreeable unto right reason, which is all I meane by the light and law of nature; though the light of nature doe not dictate the necessity of it, yet it must give allowance and approbation of it; without its

warrant it is not to be received as Decent.

A 3. Argument shall be ad hominem: by nature you say, out of Suldas, is meant 1 Cor. 11.14, Custome of some continuance in that place, and what more pro∣bable reason can be assigned for terming of a Custom Nature, then its conformity unto its allowance and approbation by the Law of Nature?

It being thus proved, that even in the Vestures, Gestures, and Ceremonies of Gods service, upon supposition of their lawfulnesse, the law and light of nature is a principall rule, it will follow that wee may with farre better reason say of it, than of custome, that 'tis, in the matters spoken of, the onely rule of De∣cency: For

1. We may truly say of the law and light of Nature, that it is in Ceremonies the only rule of Decency, though Custome be a rule thereof also; because the exclusive particle onely doth not exclude things subordinate: Now Custome is a rule of Decency subordinate unto the light of Nature, and therefore is not excluded, when I say, the light and law of nature is the onely rule of Decency.

2. We cannot say of Custome, with any truth at all, that it is the onely rule of Decency in the matters before you, wherein Ecclesiastical conformity consi∣steth, because the onely things excepted from being excluded by the particle onely, are things subordinate, and things necessarily contomitant; but now the light and law of Nature as it is not subordinate unto custome, so neither is it necessarily concomitant therewith; for divers customes in Ceremonies may be, and have been irrational against the light and law of Nature: The law and light of Nature then is excluded from being a rule of Decency, by saying Custome is the onely rule of Decency.

Adde hereunto, that the particle solum, onely, doth not alwaies exclude à totâ specie, but sometimes onely à summitate speciei, as may bee seen in Scheibl. topic. c. 2. n. 29. Now Custome is a lesse principall rule, that must un∣dergoe tryal and examination by the light and law of Nature, as a superiour rule.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 37, 38.

His second argument is wholly deceitfull, and must be discovered to be so, by reducing it to rules of art. 'Tis by him variously formed in two several Syllogismes. The first is this.

Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency.

But divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custome. The conclusion now must be, Therefore Custome is not the onely rule of Decency.

38. But this is no regular Syllogisme, 'tis in no mood or figure, not readily reducible to any; and therefore 'twas his onely way to presume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.

Jeanes.

I never said that it was an exact and regular Syllogisme.

But first, here is matter for a Categorical Syllogisme, and it is easily reducible

1. Unto a Hypothetical Syllogisme.

2. Ad Syllogismum ducentem ad impossibile.

1. Here is matter for a Categoric al Syllogisme: The only rule of Decency hath not any thing undecent agreeable unto it: Custome hath many undecent things agreeable unto it: Therefore Custome is not the onely rule of Decency.

2. 'Tis easily reducible,

1. Unto a Hypotheticall Syllogisme.

2. Ad Syllogisinum ducentem ad impossibile.

1. It may be reduced unto an Hypotheticall Syllogisme thus: If Custome be the onely rule of Decency, then nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto Cu∣stome: But divers things are undecent which are agreeable unto Custome; There∣fore Custome is not the onely rule of Decency.

The sequele of the Major is evident, because nothing can be undecent that is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency.

And the Minor cannot bee denyed: In the Syllogisme then there is only a Crypsis, the Major is concealed, and the proof thereof placed in its roome, and Cryptical Syllogismes are in all discourses justifiable, when they may be reduced: If you call upon me to reduce the hypothetical Syllogisme, unto which it is redu∣ced, unto a Categorical, you will herein be unreasonable; for those hypotheti∣cal Syllogismes that have four terms in the Major, are hardly capable of reducti∣on unto a Categorical Syllogisme; So Scheibler hath instructed me, de Propos. &c. cap. 12, n. 24.

2. It is reduced unto that Syllogisme which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which doth ducere ad impossibile, as it is taken largly for that argumentation which doth re∣duce an adversary unto an absurdity upon his own principles; for from this your principle, that Custome is the onely ••ule of Decency, this Syllogisme will ine, vitably follow,

Nothing that is agreeable to the onely rule of decency can be undecent.

All things customary are agreeable to the onely rule of decency: Therefore nothing customary can be undecent.

But now this conclusion is apparently false, therefore one of the premises is also false; for ex vero nil nisi verum sequitur: It is not the Major, for the only rule of decency makes and denominates every thing conformable unto it to be de∣cent, therefore it is the Minor, which is, that all things customary are agreeable unto the only rule of decency; and if this proposition be false, then your posi∣tion is false too, that custome is the only rule of decency, because all things cu∣stomary are agreeable unto custome.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 39, 40••

But he hath thought fit to vary this Syllogisme, and give it in other terms, and the•• one might hope it would be exactly formed, 'Tis-thus,

It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent. But yet it is very pos∣sible that many customes should be indecent. Therefore he shall conclude, that custome is not the onely rule of decency.

40. But this is no Syllogisme neither, being far removed from the measure that Lo∣gicians exact, and such as by which I will prove any thing true, that is the most distant from it. For example, it is granted truth, that Law is the onely rule of Iustice, yet this I shall disprove by a Syllogisme exactly formed by Mr. J. his model. Thus,

It is impossible, that the onely rule of Iustice should be unjust. But yet it is very possible that many Laws should be unjust, Therefore I shall conclude that Law is not the onely rule of Justice,

Jeanes.

This is a modall Syllogisme, framed exactly according to the rules of Logick touching modall Syllogismes; as for that Syllogisme which you parallel unto it, it hath no alliance with it; for both the premises of mine are true, and the Minor of yours is grosly and palpably false; for unjust lawes are not, in propriety of speech, lawes, but are so termed only equivocally, as a painted, a dead man, is said to be a man: turpe praeceptum non est lex, sed in••quitas, for obligation is essentiall unto a law; now every law obligeth in the name of God, by authority derived from him, and the glorious name of God cannot oblige unto any thing that is unjust: the Fathers, Schoolmen and ancient Philosophers are all so unanimous in assert∣ing of this, and have for this their assertion such pregnant and convincing reasons, as that I cannot but wonder, that a man of your learning should be of an other opinion; but in your next we shall hear what arguments you have for your dissent: In the mean while, I shall desire the Reader to take notice of the wit∣nesses, and reasons produced, amongst many others, by Suarez, and Gregory de Valentia, for what I affirme,

1. Suarez de legib. lib. 1. cap. 9. De ratione, & essentia legis, est, inquit, ut praecipiat justa: Assertio est non solum certa secundum fidem, sed etiam clara secundum naturalem rationem. Et ita eam tradunt non solum Theologi, & Patres inferius alle∣gandi, sed etiam passim Philosophi &c. Verum tamen haec ipsa conditio dupliciter ex∣plicari potest, scilicet vel negative, ut scilicet quod praecipitur, nec injustum, nec turpe sit; vel positive, ut sit justum & honestum.

Conditio ergo hae•• praecipue intelligitur priori modo, & sic est evidens, alia vero rati∣one invenitur in legibus divinis, & aliter in humanis. In divinis enim ratio est recti∣••udo per essentiam divinae voluntatis. Est enim Deus summe bonus, & ideo non potest a∣liquid pravum praecipere. &c.

De legibus autem humanis, hoc fundatur in alio principio. Nam legislator humanus men habet voluntatem perfect••m, sicut Deus, & ideo quantum est ex se, & quoad factum, potest interdum iniqua praecipere, ut constat: non tamen habet potestatem ad obligandum per iniquas leges, & ideo licet iniqua praecipiat, tale praeceptum non est lex, quia vim, aut valorem ad obligandum non habet. &c.

Et ita est clara ratio assertion is, tum quia illa potestas, scilicet obligandi, est a Deo, quae tem a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt: Ergo est data in honum, & in aedificationem, non in ma∣lum, se•• in destructionem: Tum etiam quia nullus inferior potest obligare contra legem, & veluntatem superioris; sed lex praecipiens pravum actum est contra legem Dei prohibentis illum: Ergo non potest obligare, quia impossibile est, homines simul obligari ad agendum, & non agendum aliquid: s•• autem opus pravam est prohibitum lege d••vina, non potest lex inferioris tollere illam superioris obligationem: Ergo nee potest inducere saam: Ergo e∣jus lex tali opere non potest esse valida. Et de hac justitia legis loquebatur August, lib. 1. de libero arbit. cap. 5. cum dixit, mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit. Et de eadem intelligi potest, quod dicit lib. de vera relig. cap. 31. Conditor le∣gum temporalium, si vir bonus est & sapiens, legem consulit aeternam, ut secundum ejus in∣commutabiles regulas, quid sit pro tempore vitandum, jubendumque discernat. Vnde si∣cut lex aeterna solum justa praecipit, quia est i••sa justitia per essentiam, ita vero lex humanae esse debet participatio ejus, & ideo non potest valide praecipere, nis•• justa, & ho∣mesta, juxta illud Prov. 8. Per me Reges regnant, & legum conditores justa decernunt.

Atque hinc ulterius concluditur, hanc conditionem, etiam positive intellectam esse de ••••tione legis.; quamvis non uno & eodem modo singulis applicanda sit, &c.

Ex h••c assertione sic declarata duo inferre possumus. Vnum est ad illam maxime perti∣nere primam conditionem positam ab Isidoro, ••cilicet, ut lex sit honesta, quod ex ipsa vocis proprietate▪ satis pate••. &c.

Secundo infertur ex dictis, legem non habentem hanc justitiam, seu honestatem, non esse legem, neque obligare, ve••um etiam nec servari posse &c.

Unto this of Suarez I shall adde what Gregory de Valentia hath to the same pur∣pose, tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 1 punct. 3. Nomen legis mag•• prop••re significat rectam a∣liquam regulam praescribentem communitati alicui perfectae modum necessarium ad bonum ejusdem communitatis &c.

Atque hoe mod•• accipit D. Thomas legem, cum infra quaest. 96. art. 4, inquit leges iniquas magis esse violentias, quam leges. Item quaest. 90. art. 2 & 3. Vbi defin••t, le∣gem ad bonum commune ordinari, & ab eo, qui curam gerit communitatis ferri.

Sic etiam D. Augustinus lib. 1. de libero arbitrio cap. 5. leg••m accepit, cum dixit, legem non videri, quae justa non sit. In quam sententiam lib, 19. de civitate Dei, cap. 21. inquit etiam, non esse jura dicenda, vel putanda, iniqua hominum constituta, Atque etiam legem esse regulam aliquam rectam censuit Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Stro∣matum, cum dixit: legem esse opinionens bonam, & regulam justorum, & injustorum. I∣tem Plato in Dialogo primo de legibus, & in Epinome, ubi asseruit, finem legis esse De∣um & cultum ejus. Item Philosophus lib. 5. Ethi••or. cap. 1. inquiens, legalia justa esse factiva & conservativa falicitatis, omnium{que} elarissime Cicero lib. 2. de legitus: Constat, inquit, profecto adsalutem civium ••ivitatum{que} incolumitatem, vitamque quie∣tam, & beatam, conditas esse leges. Et post, cum dixisset eos, qui pernicio••a, & injusta populis jara descripsissent, quidvis aliud potius tulisse, quam leges, concludit, perspicuum esse in ipso no mine leges interpretando, inesse vim, atque sententiam justi, & juris co∣lendi.

By this you may see, that in your Syllogisme there are four termes, for lawes in the Minor are taken improperly and equ••vocally, in the conclusion properly and uni∣vocally; But custome in my Syllogisme, both in Minor and Conclusion, is taken properly and univocally, for custome is predicated univocally of the most undecent customes.

For farther justification of my Syllogisme I shall reduce it in like manner that Logicians reduce Syllogismes made in Baroco and Bocardo, to wit, with that re∣duction which is ad impossibile or per deductionem ad absurdum: I suppose, that you will grant my premises, for the minor you confesse in terminis in the next Section; And the Major cannot be denyed with any colour of reason; for the rule of decency is, in some so••t, an exemplary cause of decency, and it is impo∣ssible for the exemplary cause of decency to be undecent. Well then, I suppose, that you grant the premises, and only deny, that the inference of the conclusion from these premises is legitimate; if you grant the premises to be true, then you grant the Propositions, that are contradictory unto them, to be false, and hereupon it will follow, that if I take the contradictory of my Conclusion, and can thence, joyned with one of my premises conclude, that one of the premises which I sup∣pose, you grant, is false, hereby I shall convince you, that the principall conclusion, which is contradictory unto this, was true: The contradictory of my conclusion is, custome is the only rule of decency (I take contradictory largely, as some opposite propositions are said by Logicians, to be contradictory de lege) Now this I take and sub∣joyn unto my Major, and here hence I inferre the contradictory of my Minor, all which will make up this following Syllogisme.

It is impossible for the only rule of Decency to be undecent.

But Custome is the only rule of Decency.

Therefore it is impossible that any custome should be undecent.

But the conclusion is false, and, I suppose, that you grant the contradictory thereof. Now if ••he conclusion be false, one of the premises must needs be false; for, ex vero ••il nisi verum sequitur. Now 'tis not the Major, for I suppose, and that with very good reason, that it is granted by you, therefore '••••s the Minor: now the Minor is contradictory unto the conclusion which you deny, and there∣fore the conclusion, which you denyed, is true, viz. that Custome is not the on∣ly rule of decency: for of contradictory propositions both cannot be true, Con∣tradictio semper dividit verum à falso.

Thus you see my Syllogisme is demonstrated to be true, demonstratione ducente ad impossi••ile vel absurdum.

But for the fuller clearing of it, I shall propound and answer two objections, that I foresee may be made against it, by such as are not well skilled in Modal Syllogismes.

The first is, that the duo modi impossibile and possibile are repeated but once a peece in my Syllogisme, and in a good Syllogisme every term is to be put twice.

The answer unto this in breif is, that in a Modal Syllogisme, the modus is none of the terms, but onely a Syncategorematical word, so Vallius Introduct. Log. par. 3. cap. 12. In terminis, inquit, non numera tur modus sicut; enim in conversione propo∣sitionum modus non numeratur inter praedicata vel subjecta, sed est quid additum ill is, sie in Syllogismis modalibus, modus non numeratur inter terminos, unde etiam saepe in Syl∣logismo modali non potest inferri conclusio '••um modo, sed sine illo. The very same thing is taken notice of by Scheibl. concerning such Modal Syllogisms as consist of Modal compounded propofitions, Ihi enim inquit, quod modalis particula non habeat vel rationem subjecti, vel rationem praedicati; sed simpliciter habeat se ex parte copulae: inde clarum est, quod in istis modalibus Syllogismis, particula modalis ter poni potest, nempe in singulis taelium Syllogismorum partibus, veluti: Necesse est hominem esse animal. Necesse est Petrum esse hominem. Ergo necesse est Petrum esse animal. Hîc aio, particulam necesse, nec habere rationem praedicati, nec subjecti, sed esse ex parte copulae, quia in propositione, assumptione, & conclusione reperitur. At nullus terminus in Syllogismo ter poni••potest.

A second objection is, that in the Modal Syllogismes mentioned by Aristotle, this mixture or combination of impossibile and possibile is not at all mentioned.

For answer, Aristotle instanceth in Modal Syllogismes, wherein there is a mix∣ture of necesse and contingens, and Logicians generally hold that impossibile is re∣duced unto necessarium and possibile unto contingens. Let two speak for all.

1. The but now quoted Vallius in lib. 1. prior pag. 38. Impossibile. (inquit Phi∣lopenus) comprehenditur sub necessario, quia quod est necessarium, est impossibile ut non sit, sicut quia homo est necessario animal, impossibile est ut non sit animal: & eâdem ra∣tione quod est impossibile, est necessarium ut non sit. Similiter possibile comprehenditur sub contingenti, quod enim contingit esse, hoe fieri potest, ••eu est possibile, & quod potest non esse, contingit non esse: adeoque id, quod proprie vocatur possibile, concurrit cum contingenti. He quotes also for it, if my memory fail not, Burana affirming as much ex Alexandro.

The second Author is a late one read by every Fresh-man, Burgersdicius institut. Log. lib. 2. c. 14. Propositiones modi impossibile annumerantur propositionibus modi ne∣cesse; & propositiones modi possibile, iis quae sunt modi contingit.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 41.

To discover this deceit then, the Syllogisme, which is now no Syllogisme, must he•• somewhat better formed, according to the rules of Logick, and reduced, as near as it can, into a true Syllogisme. Thus,

Whatsoever is it self undecent, cannot be the onely rule of Decency.

But custome is it self undecent.

Therefore Custome cannot be the onely rule of Decency.

Here before it can be defined, whether this be a regular Syllogisme, or no? It must bee demanded, quanta est minor, is the assumption universal or particular? If it be parti∣cular, then either the conclusion must be particular also, or else 'tîs a false Syllogisme. And if the conclusion be particular, then it inferres no more, than that some undecent custome cannot be the onely rule of decency, which is willingly granted by me, who doe not at all affirm it of undecent customes. But if the Minor be universal, then 'tis a false proposition; for certainly all customes are not indecent. The short is, Nature may bee the rule of one sort of decency, and Custome the onely rule of another; yet if the custome be in it self indecent, then of such indecent custome it is not pretended, that it is either onely, or at all the rule of decency. And so still my proposition may stand good, which as it belonged not to natural decency, so much lesse to what is by nature, or in it selfe un∣decent, never imagining it reasonable, that what gestures were against those Laws of Nature, or Scripture, or any other Law of decency, or rather of naturall comelinesse and honesty, should by pretense of any custome whatever, be introduced into Gods worship: 'Tis sufficient that some customes may bee decent, or in themselves not indecent, and that all decency in the service of God, is to be regulated and judged of by conformity with them: For I said not, that all customes were the rule of decency, but that some were, and that there was no other rule, but custome: This, I hope, hath discovered the invalidity of his second Argument.

Jeanes.

My Syllogisme is, as I have demonstrated, a true Syllogisme; you might the•• very well have spared the paines you have taken to reduce it, as neare as you could, to a true Syllogisme; for there was no need of it: You deserve then no thanks for your labour, but I have reason to expect reparation from you for de∣famation of my Syllogisme: This Section therefore I might wholly passe over, but yet I shall stay a while upon the examination of a second restriction that you put upon your dictate: you have already told us, that it is not to be understood of all decency. Now you give us to understand, that 'tis not meant of all customs, but onely of some such as are not undecent; when you say custome is the onely rule of decency, your meaning is some customes are the only rule of some kind of decency in the Ceremonies of Gods worship.

But whether this liberty which you assume in thus limiting your position bee justifiable, is very questionable; for after this rate, what grosse absurdities may any man maintain? If I should say, that solum brutum est animal: that a spirit on∣ly is substance: that number onely is quantity: that Baptisme is the only Sacra∣ment of the New Testament: would not every one cry out against these pro∣positions as untrue, as well they might? and doe you thinke they would passe for currant? though I should come with an after game, and goe about to limit them, in such a manner as you have done, by your assertion, and say, my mean∣ing was, that solum brutum est animal irrationale: that a spirit onely is an incor∣poreal

substance: that number onely is discrete quantity: that Baptisme is the onely Sacrament of the New Testament of initiation; and yet these restrictions are altogether as fair and allowable as yours.

2. I did not think your proposition capable of having an universal sign affix∣ed unto it; and my reason was, because as Aquinas p. 1. q. 31. art. 3. observeth out of the Summularii, dictio exclusiva immobilitat terminum cui adjungitur, ut non possit fieri sub eo descensus pro aliquo suppositerum, non enim sequitur, solus homo is animal ra∣tionale mortale: Ergo solus Socrates.

But yet notwithstanding this, I thought your proposition might be propositio de Idaea, as they say; and so, though it were not formally, it would be equivalent∣ly universal.

But now I shall lay aside this conjecture, because you inform us, that your indefinite proposition, was intended by you for a particular proposition, only I shall propound some objections against your making it a particular proposition.

1. When you say Custome is the only rule of Decency, you speak of Custome either formally or materially; if you speak of Custome formally and reduplicativè as Custome, why then every Custome is a rule of Decency, because à quatenus ad de omni valet consequentia, that which doth agree to a thing as such, doth agree to every singular contained under it: but if you speak of Custome only materially, and your meaning be, that Custome sub tali formali under such a consideration or qualification, is the only rule of Decency, why then this formale, this conside∣ration or qualification of Custome, may, with farre better reason, be said to bee the importance of the Aposiles 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, then according unto Custome, be∣cause Custome will be but the materiale in the rule of Decency.

2. Untill you exprésse how those some Customes may be qualified, that you make to be the onely rule of Decency, your interpretation of the Apostles words, Let all things be done decently, will be very obscure, explicatio ignoti, if not per ig∣notius, yet per aequè ignotum, and your proof that you bring for your Exposition will be as dark and doubtsome: Thus both will runne, Let all things be done ac∣cording to some customes, because some customes are the only rule in some things of some decency, whether that which you call the clear importance of the place, do not leave the Reader in an uncertainty, be you your self judge.

3. The quantity of indefinite propositions may be gathered from their matter; in a necessary matter they are universal, in a contingent, particular: Now I de∣mand whether to be the rule of decency be predicated of custome necessarily or contingently? if necessarily, then custome cannot but be the rule of decency, and then all custome is a rule of decency: A necessary proposition that is affirma∣tive, direct, natural, where superius praedicatur de inferiori, or aequale de inaequali, is also de omni: if it be predicated of it contingently, then custome may bee, and may not be a rule of decency, and then I desire you to evidence unto us how customes being thus a rule of decency, viz. contingently, will be a solid proof, that the clear importance of the Apostles words, Let all things bee done de∣cently, is, let all things be done according unto custome? and your best and speediest way to clear this unto us, will bee by reducing your argument into a Syllogisme.

4. If to be a rule of decencie be predicated contingently of custome, then cu∣stome is onely a fallible rule of decencie, and therefore it needs regulation by a higher rule; and if there be in the Ceremonies of Gods worship a higher rule

then custome, it will hereupon inevitably follow, that custome is not in them the onely rule of decency.

5. You implyedly give us the Character of those Customes which you affirm to be the only rule of decency, when you say, that of such undecent customs it is not pretended, that 'tis either only, or at all the rule of decency: Now all customs, in the Ceremonies of Gods service, are either decent or undecent: the Custome that is undecent is not at all a rule of decency, and therefore your position is to be understood of that Custome which is decent: for betwixt decent and unde∣cent customes in the Ceremonies of Gods service there is no medium, as I have shewed already: the upshot of your meaning then is, that some Customes, viz. such as are decent, are the onely rule of decency, &c. What sobrietie is in this limitation will appeare, if we will consider that herein we have a twofold decen∣cy: one in the rule, decent customes; another in the thing, regulated decency: The former is different from, and antecedent unto the latter: now of the former decency, in the rule, in custome it self, I demand, What is the rule of that de∣cency, whether custome it self, or some other thing? I presume you will not say Custome it self; for then it would be an underived, unsubordinate, and independent rule, a rule of it selfe: and if you should say that some other thing besides cu∣stome is the rule of the decency which is in custome, th•••• by conformity un∣to this, we must judge of the decency of Customes in the Ceremonies of Gods worship, whether they be decent or undecent? and from this it is obvious to inferre, that in Ceremonies there is a rule of decency antecedent unto Custome, by which Custome it self is to be regulated and measured; and therefore Custome is not the onely rule of Decency. Your limitation then is so farre from being any support unto your position, as that it giveth unto it a plain overthrow.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 42.

His last argument [because there is decency in the first usage of some things] falls upon that mistake of my words which I discoursed of, and cleared at the begin∣ning; for I never said that a thing must be castomary, before it is decent in any kind: (knowing unquestionably that there is a naturall decency) but that the decency of any Ceremony in Gods service, wherein God and Nature have prescribed nothing particularly, must be regulated according to those measures, which the customes of any place doe allow to be reverentiall among them; or, in yet plainer words, the civil customes of any nation, by which this or that sort of gesture is rendered a token of reverence, are the onely rule, by which the decency of indifferent gestures, &c. is to be judged of, in order to Gods ser∣vice. And so much for the last argument also, and consequently for the first part of his exception, that against my interpretation of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 decently.

Jeanes.

You talke indeed, Section the ninth, of such a mistake of your words, but prove it not. Now to prevent all mistakes, I shall come up unto your limitation: Custome is not the onely rule of all decency in the Ceremonies of Gods service, wherein God and Nature have prescribed nothing particularly: Verbi gratiâ, in

the Surplice and Crosse: For your Principles I suppose will lead you to assert the decency of the first usage of the Crosse in Baptisme, and of the Surplice in Preaching and Praying; and indeed if the first usage of these Ceremonies was undecent, it was sinfull: and besides, this decency was not a natural decency, dictated by the Law of Nature, as you your self will confesse; but now if there were a decency in the first usage of these Cere∣monies, Custome was not, could not be rule thereof, because, as I declared out of Aristotle and Aquinas, the frequent usage of a thing is required unto Custome.

For conclusion of this first part of mine exception, I shall intreat the Reader to take notice of the definition of Custome, usually quoted out of Isiodore: Consuetudo est jus quoddam moribus institutum quod pro lege suscipitur cum lex deficit. By this definition, Custome hath not the force of a Law, but where the Law is defective, and the Word, the Law of God is not defective in appointing religious mystical Ceremonies, for 'tis so sufficiently profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteous∣nesse, as that the man of God may thereby be perfected, throughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. I shall the efore conclude that Cu∣stome doth not, cannot oblige unto any religious, mystical Ceremonies, besides those which God hath instituted in his Word.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48.

But there is yet a second charge behind against my rendering 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according to appointment] which he hath managed in these words.

44. As for the other part of the words, Let all things be done in order; Ames in the place forementioned sheweth, that order requireth not such Ceremo∣nies as ours, and he giveth this reason, because order requireth not the institution of any new thing, but onely the right placing, and disposing of things, which are formerly instituted: and this he makes good from the notation of the word, from the definitions of order, which are given by Philosophers and Divines, &c. from the context of the Chapter, and from the usage of the word elswhere, But the Doctor, that the words, may give some countenance unto our Ceremonies, adventu∣reth upon a new interpretation of them.

The words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (saith he) literally import, according unto appointment, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sometimes signifies to appoint, as Match. 28.16. Acts 22.10, and 28.23. And wee may hereupon argue à conjugatis, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may bee some∣times rendered appointment. But because it may sometimes be rendered appoint∣men••, will it therefore follow that it must be so rendred in this place?

We may say as well as the Doctor, that the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 literally import ac∣cording unto order, as order is taken strictiy for the right placing, and ordering of things one before, another after, and this we have confessed even by Doctor John Burgesse in his Rejoinder unto Ames, pag. 78. a booke published by the speciall command of the late King. Moreover this sense is favoured by the coherence; for v. 31, we have a particular instance of order in this acception of the word,

ye may all prophesy one by one &c. and not all or many speak at once. 2. We have the opposite of order taken in this sense. 1. v. 33. confusion. Let all things be done in order, then, is as much, as, let all things be done without confusion. And I hope confusion may be avoided in the worship of God without such Ceremo∣nies as ours.

But we will for once suppose, though not grant, that the clear importance of the words, is that all be done in the Church according to custome and appointment. Yet the D. hath a hard taske to performe, before he can come nigh his conclusion, that the words of Paul, are a proof of the more than lawfulnes of prescription of such Ceremonies as ours, in a Church. For he must prove that custome and order here, are taken in such a latitude, as that they include not onely the customes and appointments of the Apostolical Churches, but also of all the Churches of God in succeeding ages: and the performance of this he will find not to be so easy, as he may imagine.

I am sensible that I have by this discourse provoked a very learned and formi∣dable adversary, but it is onely love of the truth that ingaged me in so unequal an incounter, and therefore I hope the D. will pardon and excuse my boldnes. If he can by dint of argument prove the truth to be on his side, I shall not be sorry or ashamed to be overcome by him.

45. To this, my answer will be very breif, 1. By giving the reason of my ren∣dring, 2. By evidencing, that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter ren∣dring, yet my cenclusion would very regularly follow thence, and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainsayer, about my rendring. 46. For the first it is manifest to any that knowes but the elements of Greek, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 literaly and properly signifies (according to ordination or appointment) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ac∣cording to] not (in) and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [an ordinance or constitution] mil∣lions of times in authors, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [ord••rly, or in order] lying more consonant with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, ••••reason can be rendred, why if that had been the designed meaning, that word should not have been used there.

47. That it may so signify M. J. acknowledges, and so I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal, which was not that it must necessarily thus signify, but that this being the literal regular rendring of it, I had sufficient reason to tender it thus.

48. I proceed then to the second thing, that if what he prepends to be possible also, were indeed the onely possible, or (by way of supposition, but not concession) if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] did really inport no more than [in order] as that is opposed to disorder or confusion, yet-I-say, it will soon appear, that that Apostles commanding such or∣der or orderliness, and forbidding all confusion in Ecclefiostical affaires, must by consequence be interpreted to command the instituting and observing uniformity of Ceremonies in a Church.

Jeanes.

1. Our last translators of the Bible surely knew something more then the Elements of Greek, or else King James was ill advised to make such a choice of them, and yet they thought fit to translate 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in order. 2. Few mortals perhaps, besides your self, have read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 millions of times

in Authors; but to know the meaning of that word, there is no need of such great reading, one that knowes but the Elements of Greek may by the help of a Greek Concordance and Stephanus his Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, make it mani∣fest, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifieth literally & properly order in opposition to confusion.

But 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you say signifieth according to, not in. But Stephanus in the book, but now mentioned, will furnish the Reader with store of instances, wherein, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies [in] and a school boy may be able to do as much, for the Latine word, Secundum, out of Cicero and Suetonius.

But suppose that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were translated here, according, yet this will no waies disadvantage our sense, for, according, applied to actions, signifieth, usually, the manner of such actions; so that both it, and the no••ne unto which it is joined, may be paraphrased, by an adverb, and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be as much as, orderly.

Adde unto all this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies many times, with, and so it is translated in the Dutch Bible; and let all things be done with order is equivalent unto, let all things be done in order.

Dr. Hammond sect. 47.

That it may so signify Mr. J••acknowledges, and so, I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal, which was not, that it must necessarily thus signify, but that this being the literal regular rendring of it, I had sufficient reason to render it thus.

Jeanes.

Indeed I acknowledged that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may sometimes be rendred appointment; but I added, that it doth not therefore follow that it must be so rendred in this place, & unlesse you can prove that it must be so rendred in this very place, I am to seek, what sufficient reason you had to render it thus: for if a word hath several acceptions, that is to be imbraced that hath most countenance from the context, now I gave you for the vulgar sense a reason from the Coherence, unto which you say nothing, and you say as little from the coherence for the justification of your own reading, and therefore I am not to be blamed for adhering unto the vulgar reading, especially seing 'tis favoured by the generall consent of both Translators, and Commentators, though, as you observe in the foregoing section, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lye more consonunt in sound with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for I doe not think that the Apostle was bound alwayes to observe Paronomasies.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 48, 49.

I proceed then to the second thing, that if what he pretends to be possible also, were in∣deed the only possible, or (by way of supposition, but not concession) if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did really import no more than in Order, as that is opposed to disorder or confusion, yet, I say, it will soon appear, that the Apostles commanding such order, or orderlinesse, and for∣bidding

all confusion in Ecclesiasticall affaires, must by consequence be interpreted to com∣mand the instituting and observing Vniformity of Ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.

First there is no possibilitie of worshiping God externally and publickly, without use of some Ceremonies, or circumstances of time, place, and gestare, &c.

2. There is no possibility of order in a multitude, without uniformity in the same circumstances.

3. There is as little possibility of uniformity among many, without either agreement one with another, or direction of some superior to them all, what shall by all be uniformely performed.

4. The agreement one with another, if it be only voluntary, and such, as by which none are obliged, no way secures the end; but if it be such an agreement, that every sin∣gle person is obliged to observe, then still is that a law of that body, as of a councel, &c. and as truely so, as the constitution of a single Prelate can be thought to be. And so the conclusion regularly followes, that to the preserving but of order, or orderlinesse in a Church, it is necessary, there be appointment, what shall by all be uniformity performed; confusi∣on anavoidably coming in, where no certain rules are preseribed for uniformity. What can be denyed in this processe I foresee not.

Here it shall suffice to note, that time, place, and such like circumstances, are so ma∣nifestly necessary in their kind, that the particulars may be deduced from them, by par∣ticular considerations, without any institution; but no man can deduce our Ceremo∣nies from those kinds named. Mans will is the only reason, of them, as Gods will is the only reason of Ceremonies truly divine by institution. No man can conclude thus: we must every where have some garment, and therefore in England a Surplice. We must alwaies in Baptisme, have some admonition to professe the faith, and iherefore in En∣gland, a Crosse. We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy communion; and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus; we must have a fit place to meet in, and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation, therefore we must have this. We must have a convenient time to meet in, and this hour is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monks may as well conclude: we must have some garments; therefore we must in one order have black; in another white; in a third, black over white, or white over black; in a fourth, gray; a fifth, party coloured; in some, all woollen; in some, all linnen; &c. ad infini∣tum, as well (I say) every whit, as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment, to a Surplice; from admonition, to the sign of the Crosse, or from reverence in a table-gesture; ••o kneeling.

Jeanes.

Though you cannot see what can be denied in this process, yet he that runs may read what is constantly denied by the Non-conformists, if he ever read their books: they deny over and over, over and over &c. Your two first conclusions if applied unto the Ceremonies in question: Indeed they grant, that circum∣stances of time, place, order and decency, and the like, are necessary genere in their kind, but these, I will tell you, are not the Ceremonies in controversy; the Ceremonies which they oppose are not circumstantial, but doctrinal, of moral signification, and the mere divises of men, such as the surplice, Cross, &c. And you may affirm, but can never prove, that there is no possibility of worshipping God externally, and publickly without such ceremonies, for it is manifest, that such Ceremonies are not necessary in their kind. In hoc vertitur cardo controver∣siae:

therefore if you can prove this, we shall yield you the cause, and ly prostrate at your feet to be trampled upon and triumphed oven: and until this proof be made, you can never regularly inferre, that to the preserving but of order or or∣derlyness in a Church, it is necessary there be appointment, what humane re∣ligious Ceremonies shall by all be uniformely performed.

If you shall say that by Ceremonies you understand onely circumstances of time, place, decency, order, and the like, I shall confesse my-selfe to be mistaken, but must withall for my own discharge averre, that you alone are guilty of this my mis∣take, for who could reasonablely imagine that in a controversy with the oppo∣sers of Ceremonies, you should exclude from the Ceremonies mentioned by you, all such Ceremonies as they oppose.

Your second conclusion call's for confirmation, and until you shall bethink your selfe of some reason to confirme it, I shall offer against it these following instan∣ces, unto which it is no difficult matter to adde many more; suppose the mem∣bers of Churches in a City meet at nine of the clock for Gods worship, and in the Country Parishes adjoining, where many people live at a great distance from their Churches, they meet at tenne or halfe an houre after nine, nay in the same Church at one and the same time, whilst the word of God is read or preached, those that sit in seats may have their heads uncovered, and those that stand in allies may keep on their hats the whole Sermon time, because the crowd or throng may render it in convenient to keep them off▪ Now in both these instan∣ces there is not uniformity in the same circumstances, and yet there may be order observed, and confusion may very well, notwithstanding, be avoided in all the parts of Gods worship and service.

But to give an instance ad hominem out of Parker, some of our Churches in Eng∣land had Organs, some not; some discant and broken singing, some plaine; here was no uniformity, but you will not, I beleeve, say, that there was confusion. This point of uniformity in rites and Ceremonies, the Reader may find at large deba∣ted in the now mentioned Mr. Parker Treat. of the Cross part 2. pag. 91. usque ad 99. These two conclusions being thus overthrowne, I need not stay upon the following, which will be uselesse and impertinent, without the two former be presupposed as true.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 50. 51, 52, 53, 54.

What can be denied in this processe, I foresee not, yet when 'tis granted, one reserve Mr. J. hath still left him. For saith he, if it were granted that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies appoint∣ment or ordination, yet still it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove that this extends not onely to the customes and appointments of the Apostolicke Churches, but also to the Chur∣ches of the succeeding ages. And my answer to this will conclude this whole debate.

51. First then I acknowledge, that it is not here necessarily ordained by the Apostle, that all the Churches of succeeding ages should institute Ceremonies in worship, for, pro∣vided those Ceremonies were once instituted, all that this text inforces, is uniforme obe∣dience to them.

52. But then Secondly, When for many circumstances of Gods worship, there is n•• order particularly taken by Christ and his Apostles, as in what gesture publicke supplica∣tion shall be addrest, in what, lauds and hymnes, and confession of the faith, &c. And yet the rule is given by them, that all shall be done according to appointment, and more over in other places, that obedience be paid to those superiors, which watch over our soules;

and when those rules are not given onely to the persons that then lived in the Church of Corinth, &c. But to all that should ever live in that, and in all other Churches, it can not then be deemed, either that there were no superiors designed to succeed Christ, and his Apostles in the ordering of his Church, or that they should not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, set in order the things that were wanting, such as the Ap••stles had left undispo∣sed of, or that inferiors should not be bound to obey them Ʋniformely, when they thus gave order to them.

53. When we are commanded to obey our parents, civil as well as natural, by a Law given by God to Moses, or by Christ to his Disciples, can it be strange, that we that lived not in either of those ages should thereby be obliged, when God in his providence hath given Fathers of both kinds (as well as them) regularly presiding over us, and ma∣king use of that liberty that is presumed in all parents, viz. to give Commands, and expect obedience from their children? Certainely it cannot: and as little can it be doubted, either whether our ecclesiastical parents have power to institute in things omitted, & thereby re∣mitted to their care by the Apostles, or whether we their obedient children, that are com∣manded to act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to appointment, should from time to time be disobli∣ged, and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us.

54. 'Tis granted him, if he please, that what Christ, and his Apostles have already prescribed, should not be repealed by those, that thus succeed them; should they rashly assume that power, they would not in so doing act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, whether regularly, or ac∣cording to appointment; but for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in which they have made no rules, but left order to Titus, &c. (i e. by parity of reason, to the Bishop in every Island) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainely with perfect safety be exercised by them, and that necessarily inferres our obligation to yeild obedience to their exercises of them.

Jeanes.

Here you explicate your meaning by first a concession. 2. by instances, and then you produce pretended arguments for the proof of the proposition which I say is incumbent on you to confirme.

1. You lay down a concession, I acknowledge, that it is not here necessarily ordained by the Apostle, that all the Churches of God in succeeding ages should institute Ceremonies in worship &c,

1. I cannot imagine to what purpose you lay down the grant, for notwith∣standing it, you still hold, that uniforme obedience is to be yeilded by the mem∣bers of each respective Church unto such Ceremonies in Gods worship as have been, are, or shall be appointed or commanded by any Churches in the ages suc∣ceeding the Apostles, and so still it will be incumbent upon you to prove, that custome and order are here taken in such a latitude, as that they include the customes and appointments of all the Churches of God in succeeding ages.

2. There is a difference betwixt institution and commandment or appoint∣ment of Ceremonies, for though every institution be a commandment or ap∣pointment, yet every commandment or appointment is not an institution, and hence a Church in a place may command and appoint the uniforme observance of Ceremonies instituted unto its hand by the Church in a former age.

This pre supposed, I demand, whether you hold it here necessarily ordain∣ed by the Apostle, that all the Churche of God in succeeding Ages, should ei∣ther

institute Ceremonies in Gods worship, or else appoint and command such as have been already instituted? If you thinke them all free, and disobliged from both institution and appointment of Ceremonies in worship, why then all Churches might lawfully have abstained from such both institution and com∣mandment, and if such abstinence were lawfull, I may, I beleeve, presume that it will be a very hard matter to prove such an abstinence to be inexpedient and against edification.

If you should say, that some, though not all, the Churches of God are obliged either to institute Ceremonies in Gods worship, or to appoint and command such as are already instituted, by precedent Churches succeeding the Apostles time, why then we shall justly expect that you should specifie or nominate such Churches, and give some reason for the appropriation of such an obligation unto such Chur∣ches, rather than unto others.

3. In your view of the Directory, page 19. you affirm that in the command of St. Paul, there is a proof of the more than lawfulnesse of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, prescription of Ceremonies in a Church, and of Ʋniformity therein: Now I thought that you were to be understood of all Churches, and then by more than lawfulnesse, I suppose, you had meant necessity: You say that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the prescription of Ceremonies in a Church is more than lawfull, and hereupon I imagined that you affirmed it to be necessary; but it seems I was mistaken in your meaning: I shall therefore wait for a further explication of it, and therein I shall desire to know what you understand by the more than lawfulness of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or prescription of Ceremonies in a Church? As also to be informed, whether you extend what you say of the prescription of Ceremonies in a Church unto all Churches? and if not, what reason you have for the restriction of it unto some Churches? and what these Churches are?

In the beginning of the 52 Sect. you perplex the state of the Question, by in∣stancing in the circumstances of Gods worship, which are by the Non-confor∣mists expresly excluded from the Question, for they limit it onely unto humane religious Ceremonies. Now betwixt these and the circumstances of Gods wor∣ship, there is a great, and very wide difference.

1. Circumstances of time, place, order, and decency, &c. are necessary, and ap∣pointed in generall; but humane religious Ceremonies are not necessary in generall, as will soon appear when you goe about to prove such a necessity of them. It is impossible for Gods worship to be performed without some circumstances, but it is very possible for Gods worship to bee celebrated without any humane reli∣gious Ceremonies.

2. Circumstances of Gods worship, viz. a fitting time and place, a decent Pew and Pulpit, a fair and handsome cloath for the Communion Table, are not Worship; but humane religious Ceremonies are in their nature Worship, as being instituted to lift up Gods honour immediately in their use and end.

3. Things of meer order require no ordering: Time and place require not o∣ther time and place to circumstance them aright; but now humane sacred Cere∣monies are capable of time and place, and of being ordered.

4. Circumstances of time, place, order, and decency are common to religious, with civil actions; but religious Ceremonies are appropriated unto Gods wor•• ship and service.

But to come unto your own instances.

Your first instance is in the gesture, in which publick prayer is to be ad∣drest.

But this instance is very impertinent: for

1. This is in the general necessary, so that it is utterly impossible for Prayer to be put up, but in some gesture or other; but the Ceremonies which Non-con∣formists oppose, are meere humane inventions, and so unnecessary in the ge∣nerall.

2. We have, for the particular gesture in Prayer, sufficient warrant and dire∣ction from the light of Nature and Scripture, without any humane institution: But we have no direction in Scripture for particular humane Ceremonies: This is very well set down in Ames disp. about Ceremon. pag. 139. pag. 151. No such thing can with any colour be averred of Surplice, Crosse and the like. I doe not quote Ames, as if I thought you any thing valued what he said, but that the Reader might know the true state of the question, and that in the laying of it down you have not so much as consulted your adversaries.

But now to prevent as much as may bee the multiplying of needlesse Con∣troversies betwixt us, I shall acknowledge that a Church may enjoyne the usage of any reverent, lowly, submissive gesture in publique supplications, when there is conveniencie for the usage thereof.

But yet it will not hereupon follow, that all things are to be done in the ge∣stures of publique Prayer according unto the Churches appointment; for sup∣pose the Church should prohibit in publique Prayers the gestures of kneeling, lifting up the eyes and the hands to heaven, I should conclude such an appoint∣ment of any Church whatsoever to be unlawfull, because contrary unto the ex∣presse direction of Scripture.

Your second instance is impertinent too, for the gestures of Lauds, Hymnes and Confessions of the Faith, &c. is a matter of meer decency, and how remote matters of meere decency are from the Ceremonies in question, I have declared a little before, I shall therefore now onely adde these three things.

1. That a rational man may by meer light of Nature, without any institution, easily gather, what gesture is fitting, decent and agreeable unto these actions.

2. That notwithstanding this, the Governours or Officers of a Church may appoint in these actions any decent gesture or posture of the body, provided that by speciall institution they doe not put upon it any mysticall signification, and thereby make it a Worship.

3. That from this grant it can never be inferred, that in those gestures which are to bee used in Lauds, Hymns, Confessions of the Faith, all things are to bee done according to the appointment of Church Governours: and my reason is, because it is possible, that Church Governours may bee so irrational, as to ap∣point here undecent gestures, as that the people should lye along on their faces in singing of Psalmes of Praise, and in Confession of the Faith. Now an un∣decent gesture would be finfull, because against the Apostles prescription, Let all things be done decently.

In the last place proceed we unto those arguments, if I may so call them, which you have for confirmation of the proposition, which I say is incumbent on you to prove: If you have for this any arguments in this your discourse, they are, as I conceive, these three.

1. Because obedience must be paid to those Superiours, which watch over our souls▪

2. Because the Apostle left order to Titus to set in order the things that were wanting.

3. Because we are commanded to obey our Ecclesiastical as well as naturall and civil parents: Now let the Reader apply unto each of these arguments the proposition that is to be proved, therefore 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the 1 Cor. 14.40. is taken in such a latitude, as that it includes the appointments of all the Churches of God in succeeding ages, and the consequence will bee of an imperceptible va∣lidity.

The Reader may farther, if hee please, make another experiment touching these arguments, hee may try what they will conduce unto the principal con∣clusion, that the words of Paul are a proof of the more than lawfulnesse of pre∣scription of such Ceremonies as ours in a Church; if by the help of them he can come nigh this conclusion of the Doctors, I will confesse that I have been grosly mistaken.

And this might suffice for answer unto these three arguments; but yet I shall for the further satisfaction of the Reader say something unto each of them a∣part.

The first is, because obedience must be paid to those Superiours which watch over our souls; the place is Heb. 13.17. but this place will prove nothing for the humane institution of religious Ceremonies, because our Guides may rule over us without institution of such Ceremonies, and consequently wee may pay obedience to them without practise of such Ceremonies: The place is urged by Bellarmine for the Popes Coactive power to make Laws binding the conscience, and in Whitakers Answer thereunto, Tom. 2. page. 722. you may take notice of this passage; Non constituit haee Jententia regnum Episcopis extra, aut supra Evange∣lium: non debent Episcopi suas traditiones aut leges, aut contra, aut extra, aut praeter Evangelium obtrudere. Obediendum ergo est, sed cum cautione, si praeeant illi in Domi∣no, & nil suum tradunt: nam si hoc fecerit omittendi sunt, juxta illud, etiamsi nos, aut Angelus e Coelo, evangelizet vobis praeter id quod vobis evangelizavimus, anathemae esto. Gal. 1.8. Let the Reader consider whether our Ceremonies were not institu∣ted, praeter Evangelium, besides the Gospel:

A second argument which you prosecute, Sect. 53, 54. is because Paul left or∣der to Titus, to set in order the things that were wanting; such as the Apostle had left undisposed of, in which they have made no rules, and the same power you think is left, by parity of reason, to the Bishops in every Island:

For answer, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the things that were wanting were wanting in Crete, left undone, as it is in the Margin of our English Bible, and not in the commission or rules which Paul gave to Titus: for that Titus was to keep unto the instructions that he had received from Paul, you might have seen, if you had had the patience to have read unto the end of the verse; for there the Apo∣stle points to him the rule he should walk by, hee was to set in order the things that were wanting in Crete, not of his own head, but accordîng to the appoint∣ment of Paul; as I had appointed thee.

I might farther alledge, that Bishops (by whom you mean our Prelates) have not the same power delegated unto them, which Paul committed unto Titus: But I shall for the present wave this, because it may occasion a long digression, and the former answer is abundantly satisfactory, and from it we may conclude; that suppose Bishops had power left them to set in order things that are want∣ing, yet we may not thence collect, that they have power for institution of new

doctrinal Ceremonies, besides those instituted by Christ and his Apostles, because however there may be many things wanting in their Churches, which may need reformation, yet there is nothing wanting in the Scriptures, which needs to be supplied by humane additions.

Your third Argument is drawn from the power of our Ecclesiastical parents and the obedience we owe unto them. It cannot be doubted, say you, either whether our Ecclesiastical parents have power to institute in things omitted, and thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles, or whether we their obedient Children, that are commanded to act 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 according to appointment, should from time to time, be disobliged and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us? Here we have no argument, but only a begging of the thing in question: It is not denied but that Ecclesiastical parents have power to appoint and dispose of such Circumstances of time, place, order, decency &c. as in their kind are necessary, but in particular determi∣nation do vary: But that they have any power to institute new Religious Cere∣monies, of mystical signification, is a thing which you cannot but know to be constantly denied by your Antagonists, and therefore why you should presume the contrary evident, and never attempt the proof of it, I cannot sufficiently wonder.

But perhaps you have an argument couched in these words, it cannot be dou••∣ted &c. whether our Ecclesiostical parents have power to institute in things omitted, and thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles.

But pray, Sir, do you in earnest think, that if things be omitted by the Apostles, they are by them hereby remitted unto the care of Ecclesiastical parents in suc∣ceeding ages? Every one will confesse that it sounds like a very strange proposi∣tion: however, you cannot expect that I should swallow it, until you bring some confirmation of it.

By this the Reader is, I hope, satisfied, that though your reading of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, according unto appointment, were to take place, yet you have brought nothing to prove that, which you were justly called upon for proof of, viz. that appoint∣ment, was to be taken here in this place of the Apostle in such a latitude, as to comprehend humane, as well as divine appointment.

But though you faile in your proofes, your adversaries the non-conformists are before hand with you, for they have proved that mens institution of religious Ceremonies omitted by Christ and his Apostles is a most plaine detraction and palpable derogation, from

• 1. The all-sufficiency of the Scripture.
• 2. Perfection of Gods ordinances.
• 3. Fidelity of Christ in his prophetical office.
• And lastly from the all-fulnes of his Kingly office.

I foresee that it will be alledged, that all these arguments are long ago answer∣ed, and unto this I shall at present onely give this short Reply, that they have been vindicated from all answers, as by others, so especially by Ames, and that this vindication of them remains unto this day unanswered.

However, I shall stay a while upon two places in Deuteronomy, which the Non-conformists usually urge against our Ceremonies, and examine an answer which the conformists gives thereunto, because this examination will conduce very much unto the learning of the truth in the controversy of Ceremonies: the places are Deu••. 4.2. Ye shall not adde unto the word which I command you, neither

shall you diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandements of the Lord your God which I command you. And cap. 12.32. What thing soever▪ I command you, ob∣serve to do it: Thou shalt not adde thereto, nor diminish from it,

Unto these two places, the conformists answer by distinguishing of the parts, and the Ceremonies of Gods worship; it is unlawful, say they, to adde unto the parts of Gods worship instituted by God, but 'tis lawful to adde unto these Ce∣remonies of worship that are instituted by God.

Ʋnto this answer I thus reply.

1. Moses sealed up with this prohibition not onely the moral, but also the Ce∣remonial Law; it was unlawful then, to adde unto the Ceremonial Law of Moses; and why should it not be as unlawful now, to adde unto the Ceremonial Law of Ch••ist? vis hujus consequentiae, inq••it Didoclavius, patet ex eo, quod non minus nunc quam tune rationem humanam coerceri certis septis. & quasi cancellis circumscribi opus sit, ne in rebus divinis lasciviat, aut in superstitiones delabatur.

2. The Scripture is a rule of even Ceremonies in Gods worship, for it gives prescriptions and directions in the new Testament concerning the Sacraments of Baptis••••e and the Lords Supper; now if it doth not prescribe all Ceremonies requisite and convenient, then 'tis onely a partial and imperfect rule of Ceremo∣nies in Gods worship; but we, for our part, think so honourably of Scripture, as that we cannot but hold it to be a perfect adequate and total rule of Ceremo∣nial as well as moral worship, it is able to perfect the man of God, & throughly to furnish him unto all good works, and so unto all Ceremonies, that are good workes.

A third reply is, that the members of this distinction are not opposite, as the members of every good distinction should be, for Ceremonies of worship though th••y be not parts of that worship of which they are Ceremonies, yet they are parts of worship in general, for

1. Worship is divided into moral and Ceremonial, so that Ceremonial wor∣ship is a subjective part of worship, a sort and kind of worship.

2. Mosaical Ceremonies under the Law were, and the Sacraments under the Gospel are parts of worship: the distinction then betwixt the parts, and reli∣gious Ceremonies of worship, is an artless and false distinction. To make this yet more evident, I shall propound some arguments, by which the Non-confor∣mists prove our Ceremonies to be external worship, for then it will follow, that they are parts of Gods worship.

1. Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship: But our Ceremonies are such, and therefore they are external worship.

2. All external Ceremonies in their nature, formally elicited from religion, are external worship: But our Ceremonies are such, and therefore they are external worship.

This argument I find thus varied in a nameless author that hath collected twelve arguments against our Ceremonies.

All mere and immediate actions of religion are parts of divine worship.

But all religious Ceremonies, such as ours, are mere and immediate actions of religion.

Therefore they are parts of divine worship.

And these arguments might serve to evidence, that our Ceremonies, the surplice. Crosse &c. Are imposed and used as parts of Gods worship, though for want of

a due and right author or efficient, they are false and unacceptable worship: But to return unto the Doctor, from whom I may seem to have digressed.

Dr. Hammond.

This is all the observance M. J. seemes to expect of me at this time, unless his inti∣mation to all admirers of M. Hooker, that they should vindicate their great patrone of Ceremonies, may passe for an admonition to me, who acknowledge my selfe a thankful ado∣rer of Gods graces in that godly learned man, and so exact a few lines more above the regular account.

56. This will detaine me no longer, then whilst I mind the Reader, that in a discourse of the benefits which we receive from Christ in the Saerament, & otherwise, M. Hooker undertakes to set downe how Christ in his humane nature is communicated to us, and so present with us; To this end three things he shewes at large. 1. That as nothing created can be unlimited, or receive any such accident from any as may really make it infinite, so neither the soul nor body of Christ, nor Christ as man, nor according to his humane nature, can possibly be every where present, no nor the substance of the body of Christ, which nei∣ther hath or can have any presence but onely local. 2. That this cannot be rendred possi∣ble, either by the grace of union with the Diety, nor by any other possible meanes, as he at large excellently deduceth it, pag. 300, 301, 302, 3. That it may peradventure be well enough granted in some sense, and after a sort, that Christ is every where present, as man, viz. 1. In respect of the conjunction of the humane nature with the Deity, which conjun∣ction is extended as farre as the Deity, the actual position being restrained, and tied to a certain place, and 2. By cooperation with the Deity, and that in all things.

57. Now on this third head, (without reflecting on the two former, which assure us of the authors meaning in it) two passages M. J. takes hold of, which if he know any thing in either Philosophy, or scholastical divinity, are both guilty of a grosse mistake, and cannot be sufficiently wondred at by him, that they should fall from so a learned a pen.

58. But I suppose there is no great skill in either of those learned faculties required, to distinguish betwixt that which truly and properly is, and that which may in some sense, and after a sort, and in two respects onely (neither of which belong to the propriety of being) be well enough granted, and that with a (peradventure) also to have influence on all these.

59. And what severity is this, to require of every learned man, that hath most largely refuted an adversary, to be so averse from all thoughts of peace, and reconciliation with him, that he may not allow him to speak truth, or but perhaps to speak truth in a sort, and in some sense, and in two onely respects? All which are still more than intimations, that he thinks him to be absolutely, and in simplicity and propriety of speaking, in a gross errour, impossible even to the power of God to have truth in it.

60. If any should chance to say of an eloquent man, that you might hear an Angel speak in him, and I should reply, that it might peradventure be well enough granted in a sort, or in some sense, that when he spake you might hear an Angel, assuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare man can truly be an Angel, nay that it was impossible for God himself to bring to pass, that at the same time he should be an Angel, and not an Angel, a man, and not a man, or which is all one, a bare man, and yet an Angel, or (in fewer words) when Christ saith he is a door, and a vine, if I should say that in a sort, and in some sense, and that in two respects, each of these had truth in them, would M. J. think fit to leave his subject, and let loose for three leaves toge••••••r, and pawne all his philosophy, and scholastical (not considering what the consequence also may be to his practical) divi∣nity, to accuse and wonder at, and never to give over wondering, and withal solemnely to refute this or that improper figurative speech, so perfectly acknowledged by the Spea∣kers to be such?

61. If he have that great leisure, and any prevalent temptation thus to lay it out, I shall onely assure him, that I have not so much of either, as to attend these his motions, nor any other lover or admirer of Mr. Hooker, that I know of, and therefore beseech him contentedly to rest in this general return to his charge of that learned man, without expecting any more explicite, or particular survey of it: And so much for Mr. Hooker also.

Jeanes.

I beleeve that most ordinary Readers wil think me guilty of this disingenuous carriage towards Mr. Hooker, which the Doctor accuseth me of; but if they would have but the patience to read me in the passage related unto, they would soon acquit me, and find the Doctor guilty of a great deal of injury towards me. Indeed Mr. Hooker sayes, that it may well enough be granted in some sense, and after a sort, that Christ is every where present as man, viz. in two respects; but whether this were lyable to exception, I meddle not, 'tis the first of the respects which he mentioneth, that I question, and the words that I challenge, the Reader may find page 141, of my Treat. of the Fulnesse of Christ thus summed up. Then for the great Hooker, whereas he saith, That the conjunction of the Man∣hood with Deity, is extended as farre as Deity, that the Body of Christ is joyned unto Deity, wheresoever Deity is, that his Bodily substance hath every where a presence of true conjunction with Deity This also is easily refuted, &c. Now this he affirmeth ab∣solutely and simply without any limitation, and not in a sort, or in some sense, and in two respects; and this any man that hath his eyes in his head may see, that will compare Mr. Hooker and me together; and if any learned and impartial Reader will but make this comparison, I shall be very well contented that hee shall judge betwixt us, who of us hath most trespassed against practical Divinity, I in my charge of Mr. Hooker, or the learned Doctor in his grosse and undenia∣ble falsification of my said charge? But I shall in charity hope, that this falsifi∣cation was but a mistake, proceeding from his hasty and over passionate zeal to∣wards the memory of Mr. Hooker: Whereas he is pleased to talk his pleasure of my pawning all my Philosophy and scholastical Divinity, I shall only humbly assume the boldnesse to intimate thus much unto the Reader, that though I have no great store of either, yet I hope I have enough to attend (that I may borrow the Do∣ctors phrase) the motions of him, and all other admirers of Mr. Hooker in the De∣fence of the matter questioned: but if he shall decline all future further debate of it, I shall with a great deal of probability conclude, that what Mr. Hooker saith is uncapable of any tolerable vindication: for if he were defensible, Dr. Hammond is so able as that he could, and withall so zealous a lover and admirer of him, as that he would continue the justification of him: Now from the undefensible∣nesse of Mr. Hooker in this one point, I shall onely take occasion to admonish his followers, that seeing he hath erred in so weighty a point, therefore he might erre in matters of a farre inferiour nature, especially seeing the times were such, as that they transported with prejudice many men, that were unquestionably o∣therwise very learned and godly.

Dr. Hammond. sect. 62.

I have thus without any other obligation, than what my desire to undeceive the Au∣thor and his Readers laid upon me, paid him now this my second observance: And may be allowed to think it time, that he who hath been so liberal of his uses of publick refu∣tation

of others words, should find some vacancy for one use of more private (if not re∣prehension, yet) examination of his own actions: And then I shall offer to his considera∣tion, how much more agreeable to the Laws of brotherly kindnesse or candour it hath been, to have proposed his exceptions in such a manner, or friendly addresse, as might have brought him home the same satisfaction, and saved others the importunity of these uselesse, because personal debates: When he hath sincerely observed in himself the motive of his other distant choice, I have obtained the end of my charity in mentioning it to him, and have no more to return to him at this time.

Jeanes.

We poor ignorant men, that use the trite, but not illogical Method of Do∣ctrine and Use in Preaching, doe usually first confirme our Doctrine, before we inferre any Uses therefrom. Now Sir, if you will be pleased. first to prove, that it is much more agreeable to the Laws of Brotherly kindnesse or candour, to propose a mans exceptions against a printed Book in a way of private Letter (for that I conceive is the manner of friendly addresse that you speake of) than in a publique way from the Presse, especially when the said exceptions are propoun∣ded, not for any personal satisfaction, but for the undeceiving of others, unto which end the private way is no apportionare means; I shall then proceed un∣to the use of, not only examination, but also reprehension of this mine action; but in the mean while I shall stand upon my justification, and maintaine that I am guiltlesse of any unbrotherly, uncandid, and disrespective carriage towards you in the proposall of my objections, which was in as civil and friendly a manner, I am confident, as ever you received any from any Antagonist what∣soever.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Suarez de legib.
• c 1.2

  Tom. 10. p. 289. B.
• (d) 1.3

  See Aug. de Civit Dei. l. 2. c. 8.
• (e) 1.4

  De Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And Praesente signo crucis obmutescit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Christi terrentur, si impensius fiat, fu∣gantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis responsa dare non possunt.
• (f) 1.5

  Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signaculo. Ter∣tul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.
• (g) 1.6

  Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apostolorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apud Pallad. Hist. L••us. pag. 1049. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• o 1.7

  August. de tempor. 181.
• p 1.8

  Idem Cont. Pelagium. lib. 6 c. 8.
• q 1.9

  Chrysost. in Mat. 16. homil. 55.
• r 1.10

  Cypr. lib. de bapt.
• s 1.11

  Aug. de Sanct. Serm. 19.
• t 1.12

  Aug. in Johan tractat. 18.
• u 1.13

  Aug. de utilitat. poeni∣tent.
• w 1.14

  Ambros. de iis qui i∣nitiatur. Myst. cap. 3,
• q 1.15

  Beat. Rhenan. in Ter∣tul: de Coron. milit. Magdebu••gens. centur. 3▪ cap. 6. tit. rit. Baptis.
• r 1.16

  Madgeburg. ex Tertul∣de Baptist.
• s 1.17

  Cypri lib. 3 Epis. 8.
• t 1.18

  Tertul. de pudicit.
• u 1.19

  Tertul. lib. de coron. milit.
• w 1.20

  Idem de Bapt. & Beat. Rhenan. in lib. de coron. milit.
• b 1.21

  In Joh. Tr. 118.
• c 1.22

  Tom. 10. p. 289. B.
• d 1.23

  See Aug. de civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8.
• (e) 1.24

  De Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And, Praesente signo crucis obmu∣tescit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And, 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Christi terrentur, si impensius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis responsa dare non possunt.
• u 1.25

  Exod. 30.8.
• x 1.26

  Eph. 5 5.
• y 1.27

  Jer. 17.7.
• z 1.28

  Breviar. Roman: Sa∣bat. quarta▪ quadrag.
• a 1.29

  Thom. A∣qu••n. Sum. Theol. part. 3. quaest. 25. art. 4. An∣drad. orthod. Explicat. lib. 9.
• b 1.30

  2 Kings 18 3.5.
• c 1.31

  ver. 6.
• d 1.32

  ver. 4.
• b 1.33

  Tertul. Apol. c. 7. cur malum fama? Quia velox, an quia plurimum men∣dax? quae nè tunc qui∣dem cum veri aliquid ad∣fert fine mendacii vitio est detrahens, adjiciens, demutans de veritate.
• c 1.34

  Aug. de civit. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. non tan∣ta ea commendat authoritas, ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur.
• * 1.35

  Rom. 4.
• f 1.36

  Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signacu∣lo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.
• g 1.37

  Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apostolorum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, apud Pallad. Hist. Laus. pag. 1049. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.38

  Quest.
• * 1.39

  Answ.
• a 1.40

  In Chronelog. Autho∣rum praefixa Hist. vet. Patrum Paris. 1583.
• b 1.41

  De Scriptor. Eccles in Palladio pag. 156.
• c 1.42

  Preaemio adversus Pe∣lagianos ad Cresiphentem.
• d 1.43

  Epist. 60. apud Hieron.
• e 1.44

  In Apparatu Sacro. pag. 60. Palladius pag. 207.
• f 1.45

  Vide Palladium graecè editum per Jo. Meursi∣um pag. 1.
• g 1.46

  In Hist. Vet. Patrum per Laurentium de la Barre, cap. 1.9. pag. 88. who puts these words in the Margin, Crucis signum tempere Aposto∣lor. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. MS. in Bibl. Bodlianâ. Palladius graecè per Ioh. Meurs. Lug. Bat. 1616. 4••.
• h 1.47

  Palladius ex Edit. Joh Meursii, pag. 152. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• i 1.48

  August in Evang. Joh. Tract. 118.
• k 1.49

  Chrysost. demonstrat quod Chri∣stus si•• Deus.
• l 1.50

  In his Confe∣rence with Hart, page 504. Edit. London, Anno 1598.
• m 1.51

  Jo. Meur∣sius in Prae∣fat. Lectori Palladio Praepositae.
• i 2.1

  Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. 1 c. 25.
• k 2.2

  Ib. c. 22.
• l 2.3

  Acts 4.7.
• m 2.4

  Martials treatise of the Crosse art. 2. Harpesfeildes Cope. di∣alog 4.
• n 2.5

  De vit. Constant. lib. 1. cap. 15.
• * 2.6

  [illustration]

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. which words translated amisse by Interpreters (erat litera p inserta in medio literae x) have occasioned some to make the signe otherwise then Eusebius describeth it.
• * 2.7

  5 cap. 25.
• o 2.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• p 2.9

  The figure of the let∣ter T. Tertull. advers. Marcion. lib. 3. Hieron. lib. 3. Comment. in Ezec. c. 9.
• 6 2.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• q 2.11

  Harpsfeild in his Cope-Dialog. 4. c. 3.
• r 2.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. c. 22.
• s 2.13

  Acts 4.12.
• t 2.14

  Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. c. 25.
• * 2.15

  Humanum act••in ind••∣v••duo consi∣deratum ex ••elther at â rat••one pro cedentem vel bonum esse vel ma∣lum necesse est.