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 infinitum 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 â—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 circumstances 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 controversiae 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 orderlyness in a Church it is necessary there be appointment what humane religious 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 mistake for who could reasonablely imagine that in a controversy with the opposers 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 instances unto which it is no difficult matter to adde many more suppose the members 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 instances 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 England 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 debated 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 't is granted one reserve Mr. J. hath still left him For saith he if it were granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies appointment 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 Churches 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 provided those Ceremonies were once instituted all that this text inforces is uniforme obedience to them 52. But then Secondly When for many circumstances of Gods worship there is nâ— order particularly taken by Christ and his Apostles as in what gesture publicke supplication 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set in order the things that were wanting such as the Apâ—stles had left undisposed of or that inferiors should not be bound to obey them Vniformely 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 making 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 remitted to their care by the Apostles or whether we their obedient children that are commanded to act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment should from time to time be disobliged and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us 54. 'T is 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
UNIFORMITY IN Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies Ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40 OR A REPLY UNTO Dr. HAMMONDS VINDICATION OF HIS Grounds of Vniformity from the 1 Cor. 14.40 BY HENRY JEANES Minister of Gods Word at CHEDZOY OXFORD Printed by A. Lichfield Printer to the Universitie for Tho. Robinson 1660. Uniformity in Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40 Dr. HAMMOND 1 Cor. 14.40 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 particularly respecting my rendring of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40 Let all things be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently custome being the onely rule of decency c. and of the latter because the words do literally import this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 following 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 thereof 〈◊〉 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 incumbent 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 cowardise unlesse he be a coward that is afraid or ashamed to deliver an untruth That according unto custome is the immediate sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a very gross evident falshood when I said that you dared not to affirm it my meaning plainly was that your conscience or shame kept you from such an affirmation 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was not according 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 custome is the immediate sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the adequate 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 therof to prove
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 order 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 459. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and p. 530. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lastly neither Luk. 1.8 neither in any place of Scripture doth â—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 civill 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 nâ—w mystical ceremonie fâ—r then such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches which the Defend I think will not say and then the Apostolick Assâ—mâ—lies should have worshâ—ped God uncomeliâ—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 pâ—ace that could be brought for them Now I hope we may adde the conclusion Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we doe is not left to the liberty 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 about humane Ceremonies pag. 57 usque pag. 81. 1. The Replyer seeing that all the cause on the imposers part dependeth on this plaâ—e of Scripture and finding nothing by any Logick could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies thought good to try if there may noâ— from the same plaâ—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 Retortions and all the Rejoynder his paper shâ—â— which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him to fly â—â— runne away were new Hares and exorbiâ—ations I know not else whaâ— prâ—â—ledge he hath to use a weight and a weight one for the Defend with himself and another for the Replyer 2. The argument iâ— thus put together by the Rej pag. 77 All that is left unto the Churches liberty in things pertaining to Gods worship is to order them in comely â—anner But to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe is not to order in comely manner any things pertaining to Gods worshipâ— 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 together 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 proposition 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 power is given to the Church to constitute Ceremonies from both which â—aid together 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 Persons and Actions handsomely as the Rejoind expoundeth it Yet immediately after he accuseâ—h the Repl for saying order to be the right placing and disposing 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 Measure 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 manneâ— 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 pâ—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. Jacâ—b and made the Repl. his disciple he commeth to examine the proofes of iâ— 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 answerâ—th 1. That in that place three distinct things are propounded Edification Decency 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 order tending to Edification or which is as much to our purpose in two Decency and Order for
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 forging 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 observing 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 locorâ—m temporum diversitate quia non possunt diver sissimi populi convenire in iisdâ—m legibus ritibus 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. never 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 diâ—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 cheâ—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 Ceremonies 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 necessary 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 ordinances 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 insâ—it l. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 22. severely censureth those that call such times of determinations new lawes Quis nisi â—aâ—umniator sic novam ferâ—i ab iis legem dicat quos constant duntaxat scandalis occurrere quae sunt a domino satis diserte prohibita if procuring that scandals be avoided be no new thing then neither is procuring that disorder 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 observe 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 commanded 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 câ—yeth out of miserable perversion eitheâ— 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 power 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 commiâ—â—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 â—he very same manner that the Rejoynd doâ—h The Pope is not the cheiâ— law giver but the Vicar of Christ and by Christs authority maketh lawes 3. He addâ—th that Junius dâ—â—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 denyed by the Repl at all The Rejoynd having little to say that was to purpose catcheth hold of one word in the end of the Assumption used by the Repl. seemâ—inesse of order which yet is immediately there differenced from other decency as well commanded as this and that he maketh the main matter of the proposition whereas the meaning is that nothing is left unto liberty 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 fâ—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 riâ—es and Ceremonies are so various that if ouâ— Lord had fixed any one certain fashion he should
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 rendring 2. By evidencing that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literaly and properly signifies according to ordination or appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to not in and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinance or constitution millions of times in authors and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordâ—rly or in order lying more consonant with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 order 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 order 2. Few mortals perhaps besides your self have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth literally properly order in opposition to confusion But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you say signifieth according to not in But Stephanus in the book but now mentioned will furnish the Reader with store of instances wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 noâ—ne unto which it is joined may be paraphrased by an adverb and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as much as orderly Adde unto all this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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. Jâ—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lye more consonunt in sound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 indeed the only possible or by way of supposition but not concession if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 forbidding all confusion in Ecclesiasticall affaires must by consequence be interpreted to command 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 single 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 confusion 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 manifestly necessary in their kind that the particulars may be deduced from them by particular considerations without any institution but no man can deduce our Ceremonies 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 England a Crosse We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy communion and therefore in England we must kneel in
whether regularly or according to appointment but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 notwithstanding it you still hold that uniforme obedience is to be yeilded by the members 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 succeeding 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 appointment of Ceremonies for though every institution be a commandment or appointment 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 ordained by the Apostle that all the Churche of God in succeeding Ages should either 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 commandment 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 Churches 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prescription of Ceremonies in a Church and of Vniformity 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 instancing in the circumstances of Gods worship which are by the Non-conformists expresly excluded from the Question for they limit it onely unto humane religious Ceremonies Now betwixt these and the circumstances of Gods worship there is a great and very wide difference 1. Circumstances of time place order and decency c. are necessary and appointed 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 religious 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 other time and place to circumstance them aright but now humane sacred Ceremonies 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 addrest 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-conformists oppose are meere humane inventions and so unnecessary in the generall 2. We have for the particular gesture in Prayer sufficient warrant and direction 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 Controversies 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 gestures of publique Prayer according unto the Churches appointment for suppose 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 appointment of any Church whatsoever to be unlawfull because contrary unto the expresse direction of Scripture Your second instance is impertinent too for the gestures of Lauds Hymnes and Confessions of the Faith c.
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 't is evident among 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 infers 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 command 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 people 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 absolutely 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 indecencie 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or notion of decency 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 Vociferations I have heard many against the undecency of Gods worship and service amongst Presbyterians and when I have called for proof I have been told amongst oâ—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 learned 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 ceremonies pag. 58. confesseth that comelinesse in the very place of the Apostle containeth all naturall and civill handsomness and in his Reply to Mortons general 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 stretcheth 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 provided 1. That it be consuetudo rationabilis Suarez de legib 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
performed i. e. with such ceremonies as by custome 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 unguntur sive sacrificâ—o quâ— aluntur nihil eorum ritè perficitur Saint Augustine here you see approves of the Châ—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 cannot 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 Reformation used any of â—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 Confutation 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 necessity of the Sign of the Crosse unto Baptisme and the Lords Supper Bellarmine 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 significatam ullis figuris nego Nec ignoro tamen produci posse in contrarium testimonia quaedam ex Patribus Sed ego quicquid Patribus in buccam venit non censeo amplect endum 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 sententias inquirere Certe illud de sanguine agni posito super utroque poste remotissimum est à Cruce Hoc solum tenuissimum vestigium positio in poste nonnihil alludit ad positionem in fronte quae in corpore supremum locum occupat sicut in ostio postis Sed sanguis quanto aptiùs sanguinem Christi significaret ut apud Gregorium homilia vigesima secunda in Evangelia Quid sit sanguis agni non jaâ—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 significat sanguinem Christi non significat crucem Deinde unum idemque potest varia significare at non quaelibet sed ea tantum ad quae habet analogiam Quaenam est vero analogia sanguinis agni ad crucem nam agno significari Christum nemo inficias eat Quomodo ergo sanguis ex agno
than when he walketh 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 infinite 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 lawfull to adde unto the Ceremonial Law in the New Testament Christ was faithfull 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 himself 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 Ceremonies is to teach her with a Fescue to hide the light of the Gospel under a bushel and it is a vailing and shadowing of its brightnesse Some have concluded the Surplice to be decent because the Angels appeared 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 Centures 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 notwithstanding 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 Ministery 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 praesumptionibus 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 nature 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 untill Amesius his argument against things of this nature humane mystical ceremonies 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 Ceremonies 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 Prelates 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 any 1 Cor. 6.12 Now we were brought under the power of the Crosse and Surplice for as Aquinas rightly qui utitur eo quod non expedit sive licitum sive illicitum 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 ignorant Ministers found more favour at their Tribunals than such of the Nonconformists as were renowned for parts and learning and exemplary for personal 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 Consistories 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
with all your united forces prove the lawfulnesse 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 Primitive 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 irrational 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 Ceremonies 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 worship 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 Victories as the Emperours slighting of him And I am confident that your despising of Ames will adde nothing unto your conquests it appears by your mistake 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 uncharitable 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 Readers 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 generall 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 requisite 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 addeth any thing of her own shee doth deâ—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 nothing 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 circumstances 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 meanâ—s of worship and therefore worship or the ordering 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A â—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 indifferent and say they be in order or for order But only to â—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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 compositionem rerum aptis accommodatis locis Locum autem actionis opportunitatem dicunt esse temporis Aug. de civit lib. 15. cap. 13. Order is the
have made rather snares then lawes for his Church As if he had appointed sitting at the table in a communion or kneelâ—ng in prayer This is strange stufle 1. So much is granted as is desired viz. that God haâ—h left nothing about his worshâ—p undetermined in his word i.e. uncommanded 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 possible 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 â— How can that too too bold and inconsiderate assertion be excused if our Lord had fixed or Commanded any one certain fashion 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 parâ—icular 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 siâ— 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 Countries 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 answereth 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 nothing 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 particular 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 â—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 circumstances 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 determine circumstances of time and place as real worship I then answer that this as I think the Replyer learned out of that Divinity 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 betwixt 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 exclusively 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. â—elleth us of cumber and much ado that would have been in naming every
herein we have a twofold decency 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 decency 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 custome is the rule of the decency which is in custome thâ—â— by conformity unto 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 beginning 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 service And so much for the last argument also and consequently for the first part of his exception that against my interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ceremonies 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 't is so sufficiently profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction and for instruction in righteousnesse 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 Custome 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Ceremonies 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 adventureth upon a new interpretation of them The words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith he literally import according unto appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sometimes signifies to appoint as Match 28.16 Acts 22.10 and 28.23 And wee may hereupon argue à conjugatis that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may bee sometimes rendered appointment But because it may sometimes be rendered appointmenâ— will it therefore follow that it must be so rendred in this place We may say as well as the Doctor that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literally import according 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 Ceremonies 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 formidable 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
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 appoint 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 undecent 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 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 validity The Reader may farther if hee please make another experiment touching these arguments hee may try what they will conduce unto the principal conclusion that the words of Paul are a proof of the more than lawfulnesse of prescription 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 apart 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 Evangelium 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 Domino 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 instituted praeter Evangelium besides the Gospel A second argument which you prosecute Sect. 53 54. is because Paul left order 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Apostle 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 appointment 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 wanting 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 determination do vary But that they have any power to institute new Religious Ceremonies 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 douâ—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 succeeding ages Every one will confesse that it sounds like a very strange proposition however you
contrived in a more facile way than heretofore hath been publisht 4o. Books written by Dr. Owen The Doctrine of the Saints Perseverance examined confirmed in Folio Socinianism examined in the confutation of Biddle's and the Racovian Catechism 4o. A Review of the Annotations of H. Grotius in reference to the Doctrine of the Deity and Satisfaction of Christ in Answer to Dr. Hammond 4o. Of the Mortification of Sin in Pelievers with a resolution of sundry cases of Conscience thereunto belonging 8o. Of Temptation the nature and power of it the danger of entering into it and the means preventing the danger with a Resolution of sundry Cases thereunto belonging 8o. Providentiall Alterations in their subserviency to Christs Exaltation open'd in a Sermon on Ezech. 17. ver 24. 4o. A Sermon concerning the Kingdom of Christ and Power of the Civil Magistrate about things of the Worship of God on Dan. 7.16 4o. Gods work in Founding Zion and his peoples duty thereupon on Isaiah 14.32 4o. Of Schism in reference to the present differences in Religion 8o. A Review of the true Nature of Schism in Answer to Mr. Cawdrey 8o. A Defence of Mr. Jo. Cotton and a Reply to Mr. Cawdrey about the Nature of Schism 8o. Diatriba de Justitia divina 8o. Of Communion with God the Father Son and Holy Ghost each person distinctly in Love Grace and Consolation 4o. Of the Divine original Authority self-evidencing Light and power of the Scriptures Also a Vindication of the Purity and Integrity of the Hebrew and Greek Texts in some considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta 8o. Pro Sacris Scripturis adversus hujus temporis Fanatiâ—os Exercitationes Apologeticae quatuor 8o. Books written by Mr. Hodges A Treatise of Prayer or an Apology for the use of the Lords Prayer 12o. A Scripture Catechisme towards the Confutation of sundry Errors some of them of the present times 8o. The Hoary Head Crowned a Funeral Sermon on Proverbs 16.31 4o. A Cordial against the fear of death a Sermon on Heb. 2.15 4o. Books written by Dr. Wallis Mathesis Vniversalis sive Arithmeticum opus integrum 4o. Adversus Meibomii de proportionibus 4o. De Angulo Contactus Semicirculis 4o. De Sectionibus Conicis Tractatus 4o. Arithmetica Infinitorum 4o. Eclipseos Solaris observatio 4o. Commercium Epistolicum de quaestionibus quibusdam Mathematicis nuper habitum 4o. Mens sobria serio commendata Concio lat Expositio Epistolae ad Titum 8o. Grammatica Linguae Anglicanae 8o. Due Correction for Mr. Hobbs 8o. Hobbiani Puncti dispunctio 8o. Books written by Dr. Zouch Cases and Questions resolved in the Civil Law 8o. Juris Judicii Fecialis sive Juris inter Gentes 4o. Specimen Quaestionum Juris Civilis cum designatione Authorum à quibus in utramque partem disseruntur 4o. De Legati delinquentis Judice competente dissertatio 12o. Eruditionis Ingenuae specimina scil Artium Logicae Dialect Rhetor. Moralis Philosoph 12o. Quaestionum Juris Civilis Centuria Non minus ad Legum Generalium Cognitionem quam ad studiosorum Exercitationem accommoda 12o. newly publisht Conciones Octo ad Academicos Oxon. Latinè habitae Epistolarum Decas Auth. Hen. Wilkinson S. Th D. 8o. Rob. Baronii Philos Theologiae Ancillans 12o. Rob. Baronii Metaphysica Generalis Special omnia ad usum Theologiae accomodata 12o. Latium LyceuÌ„ Graeca cum latinis sive Gram. Artis in utraque lingua lucidissima Auth. Rob. Wickens 8o. Exercitatio Theolog. de Insipientiâ rationis humanae Gratiâ Christi destitutae in rebus fidei Aut. R. Crosse Col. Linc. 4o. Fur pro Tribunali Examen Dialog cui inscribitur Fur Praedestinatus Auth. Geo. Kendal S. Th D. 8o. Miscellanea sive Meditat Orationes c. Auth. Ed. Ellis 12o. Homerus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sive Comparatio Homeri cum Scriptoribus Sacris quoad normam loquendi Auth. Zach. Bogan 8o. Exercitationes aliquot Metaphysicae Aut. Tho. Barlow Col. Regin 4o. Juelli Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae graec lat 8o. Tract de Demonstratione Aut. Jo. Flavel 8o. Dionysius Longinus de Grandi-loquentiae graec lat cum Notis 8o. Stratagemata Satanae Aut. Jacob. Acontium 8o. Jul. Lu. Florus de Rebus à Romanis gestis cum Annot. Jo. Stadii Claud. Salmasii 12o. Eryci Puteani Suada Attica sive Orationum select Syntagma 8o. Eryci Puteani Historia Insubrica 12o. Jo. Bambrigii Astronom Profes Saviliani in Acad. Ox. Canicularia Quibus accessâ—runt Insigniorum aliquot Stellarum Longitudines latitud ex Astron obser Vlugbeigi 8o. Adagialia sacra Novi Testam selecta exposita ab And. Schotto 12o. Musica Incantans sive Poema exprimens Musicae vires Aut. R. South 4o. A Guide to the holy City or Directions and Helps to an holy Life by Jo. Reading B.D. 4o The Royal Slave a Tragi-Comedy by W. Cartwright 4o. Pliny's Panegyrike A speech in Senate to the Emperour Trajan Translated into English by Sir R. Stapleton 4o Good Counsel for the Peace of the Church by Bishop Davenant 4o. The Doctrine of Christian Liberty by Bishop Downame 8o. A Defence of Tithes by Jo. Ley. 4o. A Buckler for the Church of England in Answer to Mr. Pendarvi's Queries by Will Ley. 4o. Vindieiae Academiarum in Answ to Websters Exam. Acad. by S. Ward D.D. 4o. The private Christians Non ultra or a Plea for the Lay-mans Interpreting of Scriptures 4o. The onely way to preserve life A Sermon on Amos 5.6 by Gr. Williams D.D. 4o. King Davids Sanctuary A Sermon preached before the King at Oxford on Psal 73.25 by Rich. Herwood 4o. The Vanity of Self-boasters A Funeral Sermon on Psal 52.1 by Ed. Hinton D.D. 4o. The quiet Soul or the peace and tranquillity of a Christians estate in two Sermons on Mat. 11.29 by Ed. Ellis 4o. Concio Oxoniae habita postridie Comitiorum Jul. 13. 1658. pro GraduÌ„ Doct. à Guliel Burt. Col. Wint. Custod 12o. A Practical Discourse concerning Gods Decrees by Ed. Bagshaw Stud. of Ch. ch 4o. De Monarchia Absoluta Mixta Dissertatio Politica Aut. Ed. Bagshaw 4o. Susannas Apology against the Elders or a Vindication of Susanna Parr one of those two women lately Excommunicated by Mr. Stuckley and his Church in Exeter 8o The young Divines Apology for his continuance in the University with his serious Meditation on the sacred Calling of the Ministry 8o Tears shed in behalf of the Church of England and her sad Distractions by D. Getsius 8o The Abuse of Gods Grace discovered in the Kinds Causes Punishments Symptomes Cures Differences Cautions and other Practicall Improvements thereof Proposed as a seasonable check to the wanton Libertinism of the Present Age. By Nich. Claget 4o A Treatise of Fruit-Trees shewing the manner of Grafting Setting Pruning and ordering them in all respects by Ra Austin 4o. The Spiritual Use of an Orchard or Garden of Fruit-Trees set forth in divers similitudes according to Scripture and Experience by Ra Austin 4o Observations on some part of Sir Francis Bacons Natural History as it concerns Fruit-trees Fruits and Flowers by Ra Austin 4o. The History of the Propagation of Vegetables by the concurrence of Art and Nature Shewing the severall wayes for the Propagation of Plants usually cultivated in England as likewise the Method for Improvement and best Culture of Field Orchard and Garden Plants written according to Observation made from Experience and Practise by R. Sharrock Fellow of New Col. 8o Hypothesis de Officiis secundum humanae rationis dictata seu Naturae Jus unde Casus omnes Conscientiae quatenus notiones à Natura suppecunt dijudicari possint Ethnicorum simul Jureperitorum consensus ostenditur Principia Rationes Hobbesii Malmes ad Ethicam Politicam spectantes in examen veniunt Aut. R. Sharrock 8o A compleat Concordance of the English Bible by Rob. Wickens 8o Immortality of Humane Souls asserted in Answer to a Tract entituled Mans Mortality 4o. The Entrance of Mazzarini or some Memorials of the State of France between the Death of the Cardinal of Richelieu and the beginning of the late Regency 12o. Books written by Mr. Hen. Jeanes The want of Church Government no warrant for a total omission of the Lords Supper 8o A Treatise of the Excellency of Praise and Thanksgiving 4o A Mixture of Scholastical and Practicall Divinity in two Parts 4o Doctor Hammonds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a greater Ardency in Christs love of God at one time than another proved to bee Irreconcileable with his Fulnesse of Habitual Grace the perpetuall Happinesse and the Impeccability of his soul 4o Saintship no ground of Soveraignty or a Treatise tending to prove that the Saints barely considered as such ought not to govern By Edw. Bagshaw M.A. Stud. of Ch. Ch. 8o Three Decads of Sermons preach'd to the University at St. Maries Church in Oxon By Henry Wilkinson D.D. Principal of Magdalen Hall Oxon. 4o.