UNIFORMITY IN Humane Doctrinal Ceremonies Ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40. OR, A REPLY UNTO Dr. HAMMONDS VINDICATION OF HIS Grounds of Uniformity from the 1 Cor. 14.40.  
BY HENRY JEANES, Minister of God's Word at CHEDZOY.  
OXFORD, Printed by A. Lichfield Printer to the University, for Tho. Robinson, 1660.   

Uniformity in Humane Doctrinal 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 Christ's 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 God's Service, and particularly respecting my rendering of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2. These indeed I thus rendered [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 Custom and appointment, rendering this reason of the former, because it was employed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decently (custom being the only rule of decency, etc.) 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 affirm that this is the immediate sense of the place, but only that it is employed; it cannot be denied, but that decency doth imply such customs, 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 undecency can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of Baptism without the Cross; as also in public Prayers and Preaching without a Surplice? But of this see farther in Aims in the places but now quoted: The Doctor may perhaps look upon him as an inconsiderable adversary. But we shall think his Arguments considerable; until 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 custom is the only 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 add a confutation of it, from these following arguments.  
1. If custom be the only rule of decency, than nothing else can be a rule thereof besides customs, 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 only rule of decency but divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custom; and this is so evident, as that I will not so much undervalue the Doctor's judgement, as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impossible that the only rule of decency should be undecent; but yet it is very possible that many customs should be undecent, and therefore I shall conclude, that custom is not the only rule of decency.  
3. Lastly, unto custom, as you may see in both Aristotle and Aquinas, the frequent usage of a thing is required. But now there may be decency or handsomeness in the first usage of a thing; and of this decency custom 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 infer indecency: And the proof of this charge twofold, 1. by way of question, founded in two instances, the Cross in Baptism, and the Surplice in public 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 custom is the only rule of decency] which he confutes by three arguments.  
These three charges I shall now very briefly 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 signify timidity or cowardice) 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 errors, we do not reproach them with cowardice, unless he be a coward that is afraid, or ashamed to deliver an untruth. That according unto custom is the immediate sense of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a very gross & evident falsehood; & 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 custom; and then, I propounded for my own part what I granted.  
2. Though in Charity I judge, that you dare not say, that according unto custom, 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 custom 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 only the partial, and inadequate importance of it, I will not so much as imagine: But now, if it be not the express, and immediate sense of the word, but only employed therein, as drawn therefrom, as a sequel or inference; by way of deduction or consequence, it may only be a part or piece of the importance thereof: to prove then, that 'tis the full and adequate importance of the word, you must make good, that it is the immediate sense of it.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 6.  
To make short, and prevent all possibility of his, or any man's farther mistaking my words, I shall hasten to tell him the full of my meaning in that passage, that (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently) implies (according to custom) viz. that in such things as these, of which then I spoke, gestures, habits, and the like circumstances of Gods public service, wherein the Apostle prescribes care of decency, 'tis necessary to observe the custom, of the place wherein we live.   

Jeanes.  
1. The customs of some places in gestures, habits, and the like circumstances of God's worship are very undecent, and it is not necessary to observe such customs: But you will perhaps say, that you except undecent customs, and then you are to be understood only of decent customs; for every custom is decent or undecent: because decency and undecency are privatively opposed, and interprivatiuè opposita non datur medium in subjecto capaci, between privative opposites there is no middle either of abnegation or participation in a capable subject: The result and upshot then of your meaning is, that, decently implies, according unto decent customs; and then  
1. The full of your meaning is but a trifling speech, that proves nothing in the Controversy, unless you also prove the Ceremonies controverted, to be so decent, as that the omission of them will be undecent in the service of God.  
2. I would fain know, how you will suit unto it the proof of it: Custom is the only rule of decency, for there too, by custom you understand that which is decent, so that your argument runs thus: decent custom is the only rule of decency; therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently, implieth decent customs. And this argument most of your learned Readers will (to borrow your words concerning a saying of mine) despise under the appearance of a tautology.  
2. If the full of your meaning in that passage, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decently, implies according to custom, be, that in such things as these, of which then you spoke, gestures, habits and the like circumstances of Gods public service, etc. it is necessary to observe the customs of the place wherein we live, why then I must be bold to tell you, that the full of your meaning is very short of the meaning of the Apostle; for these words of the Apostle, let all things be done decently 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prohibits all undecency, not only that undecency against the custom of the place wherein we live, but also that undecency which is against the dictates of the Law of Nature. By this the Reader may see, how defective your exposition is: the Apostle saith, let all things be done decently, and your gloss is, let some things in God's worship be done according unto some customs, to wit, such as are decent.  
3. I suppose that by gestures, habits, and the like circumstances in the service of God, you mean such of them as are Symbolical ceremonies; for otherwise your full meaning is nothing unto the purpose, because it will be no ground for that uniformity you plead for. Now that the Apostles words, let all things be done decently implieth, that in humane Symbolical ceremonies it is necessary that we observe the customs of the place wherein we live, is a thing which I utterly deny, and shall be constant in such denial, until you drive me from it by some convincing argument; and that I do not do this out of stomach, will appear by the reason that I shall allege: The words of the Apostle, let all things be done decently, are not disobeyed, unless there be some undecency committed in the worship and service of God; for decency and undecency are privatively opposite, and therefore there is decency in those actions where there is no undecency; but now by the omission of Symbolical ceremonies of humane institution, such as the Cross in Baptism, Surplice in Prayer and Preaching, which can plead custom of the present place we live in, there is committed no undecency in the worship and service of God, viz. in Baptism, in Preaching and Praying, as will be apparent unto any man that will attempt to prove syllogistically the contrary; therefore the Apostles precept is not disobeyed by the omission of such Symbolical ceremonies, and consequently the Apostles precept doth not in any way imply such Ceremonies.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 6.  
This I then thought sufficiently explicated by exemplifying in men's wearing long hair, which the Apostle proved indecent by its being against 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. saith Suidas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a custom of some continuance in that place (which yet in women there, and men in other places, where that custom prevailed not, had nothing indecent in it.)   

Jeanes.  
1. This conceit that you have out of Suidas, Salmasius de C●ma disputes against; but his argument satisfyeth me not, and therefore I shall wave all that he says, and confine myself unto the very words of the Apostle for disproof of your sense of them, and my reason is taken from the joining of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; for suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nature, may sometimes signify custom, yet that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nature itself should signify custom, is very improper.  
2. women's wearing of long hair is no religious mystical ceremony, but used out of God's worship and service, as well as in, and therefore a most impertinent exemplification of that which you plead for, Uniformity in religious mystical Ceremonies, that are proper and peculiar unto the special and solemn worship of God.  
I readily grant, that in some places, custom hath made the long hair of women one badge of distinction between them and men; but being by custom made such a badge, nature itself dictates the observation of it; and if a man wear such long hair as women; he sins against the law of nature, if not immediately and proximè, yet mediately ex interventu rationabilis consuetudinis.  
As impertinent is your second exemplification, if Chrysostom's and others exposition may have place; for they refer [we have no such custom] unto the words immediately foregoing (and why we should go farther for a coherence, I can see no reason) if any man seem to be contentious: So that the meaning of the Apostle is, we have no custom to be contentious: Now to be contentious, is a sin against the Moral Law, the Law of Nature, and therefore belongs not unto your discourse of Ceremonies.   

Dr. Hammond. sect 7.  
But this exemplification of my meaning he thought fit to conceal from the Reader, and supply that vacuity only with an etc. yet reciting at length, to a word, what was immediately before, and after it. His design in so doing, I judge not, but shall endeavour to undeceive the Reader for the future, by farther enlarging on it.   

Jeanes.  
1. women's wearing of long hair is no Symbolical ceremony, and therefore what you said of it was an impertinency, and no exemplification of your meaning, and therefore I had no reason to take notice of it.  
But 2. suppose it were an exemplification, yet unless it were also for confirmation of your conclusion; that custom is the only rule of decency, I was no wise obliged to recite what you said herein; for I expressly told the Reader, I would transcribe what was argumentative in your words; now what I left out was not argumentative; for from it, neither you, nor any man else can ever infer your now mentioned conclusion.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 8.  
All people, I think, in the world, have some outward significations, and expressions of Reverence; but all have not the same, but according to Topical customs, some different, some contrary to others: We of this and all our neighbour nations express reverence by uncovering the head, the Turks do the contrary. Again, among Christians, 'tis customary for men so to express their reverence, but for women, saith the Apostle, it is not, but the contrary; and so it is still among us. Nay it was once among some Heathens (that worshipped Mercury) an act of the highest reverence, even of adoration, to throw stones at their God; among others, to cut themselves with Lances, when they were a praying to him. And it can be no news to Mr. J. that these customs were not observed by other Countries; the Jews that threw stones at Christ, and the Daemoniack that cut himself with them, were neither of them interpretable to worship him.   

Jeanes.  
1. Unless you can prove, that there cannot be outward significations and expressions of reverence in God's service, without humane Symbolical ceremonies, all this your enlargement about the expressions of reverence will be to no purpose. We require reverence in all parts of God's worship as well as you; but then we hold, that God's worship may be performed reverently, and in a seemly manner, without mystical ceremonies of humane invention.  
2. Kneeling in Prayer is an expression of the highest degree of Reverence, Adoration; and it hath a higher rule than Custom, viz. Scripture and the light of Nature: No Custom can render this Kneeling undecent; unless you will say those words of the Psalmist, Psal. 95.6, do not oblige Christians: O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord our maker.  
3. There be some customary expressions of reverence, that are undeniably unjustifiable, and you cannot say that they are employed in the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thus for expression of reverence, 'tis a custom with Papists not to touch the bread with their hands, but to have it put into their mouths; and upon the like pretence of reverence, it is customary amongst them, for Laymen to abstain from the Cup altogether.  
Lastly, why you bring in the Heathens throwing of stones at Mercury in a way of worship, I cannot divine; for I cannot imagine, that you think it to be a decent way of worship, and if it be undecent, than it serveth nothing unto the exemplification of your meaning.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 9  
This therefore was no dark, but visible foundation of what I said; In assigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God, decency, saith the Apostle, was to be observed, the only rule to judge of that, is, say I, to consider the Customs of that particular place, of which we consult. Where bewing the knee, or kneeling on the ground is customarily used as a token of reverence, where putting off, or keeping off the hat, there the choice of Ceremonies must be made with respect to those particular customs: Here 'tis evident, that I mean not the frequent usage of that ceremony, in opposition to a first usage of it, as Mr. J. is willing to mistake me, and found one of his arguments upon that mistake, but the standing-custome of the place, by which, as by an argument or evidence, such a ceremony is demonstrated to be a reverential respect, and so (for the service of God, to whom all reverence is due) decent in that place, though in nature or in the estimation of all other men, it be not so.   

Jeanes.  
1. If the Apostle had said, as you say, he saith, there ought to be no farther controversy about the lawfulness of humane ceremonies; but that clause [in assigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God, & c. ●is an Apocryphal addition of yours, without any colour from the Text itself, or from the coherence; and therefore all you build upon it is but fancy and fiction: That the Apostles decency cannot be observed without assigning such Rites and Ceremonies as you dispute for, you may dictate and boldly affirm, but can never with all your learning solidly prove; and unless you can make proof hereof, you and your party have just reason to be ashamed of urging this place for ceremonies, with such an unshaken confidence as you do.  
2. Whereas you tell us, 'tis evident that you mean not 〈◊〉 the frequent usage of that ceremony in opposition to the first usage of it: This evidence of your meaning you have not so much as attempted to prove; and if you shall for the future make such an attempt, it would, I am afraid, prove successless. The custom of a thing (unless you can fasten upon it a sense or meaning never yet heard of) is opposed unto the first usage of that thing; for custom implieth the frequent usage of a thing, and to say that the frequent usage of a thing is the first usage of it, is an evident repugnancy and an apparent contradiction, contradictio in adjecto oppositum in opposito, as they say. I am therefore much to seek for the sense and reason of that Antithesis you make in these words, I mean, not the frequent usage of that ceremony in opposition to a first usage of it, but the standing custom of the place, etc. for 'tis impossible that the standing custom of the place in a ceremony, should be the first usage of that ceremony; where the mistake is let the Reader judge.  
3. In that which followeth, there is nothing of argument, unless you can prove every ceremony, which can plead the standing custom of a place, to be a fitting and decent expression of that reverential respect, which is due unto God. Bishop Morton in his Book of the Institution of the Sacrament of the blessed Body and Blood of Christ, p. 80, 81. showeth that the opinion of reverence, hath been the dam and nurse of manifold superstitions; and after such demonstration he quotes a saying of chrysostom upon Joh. 13.8. Let us therefore learn to honour and reverence Christ as he would, and not as we think fit.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.  
10. Certainly this is so evident in itself, and so undeniably the importance of my words, that there can be no need farther to enlarge on it, much less to examine the weight, or meaning of his concession, that it cannot be dented but that decency doth imply such customs, the omission of which necessarily infers 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 tautology. 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 customs▪ 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 lapsed) nature prescribes, covering of nakedness, and the like; of which 'tis evident among all that have not learned of Carneades industriously to raze out all natural measures of honest and dishonest, that the omission of them infers indecency, yea and necessarily infers it, this sort of decency being natural to all men that ever were, or shall be in the world, born and educated in what nation, or enured to what custom soever, and this the very first hour after our first Parents fall, before any custom had been contracted which might recommend it to them.  
13. And as of these his rule is true, that the omission of these necessarily infers undecency, so it is in a manner proper to these, and belongs not to any other sort of things▪ whose decency flows but from some positive command though it be of God, or custom, or command of men. To such things whose decency flows from any command either of God or man, this rule cannot be fully applied; 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 only dependently on the law, and conditionally, infer indecency; so in like manner the rule holds not in those things, whose decency is introduced only by custom, for that Mr. J. truly saith, arising from frequency of actions, it must again be granted, that there was a time when that which now is custom, was new, and so not custom; and again, there are, or may be Nations, with whom that custom (whatsoever can be instanced in) hath not prevailed, which prejudges still the necessity spoken of, that such omission should infer indecency.  
And so we see the Jumme of Mr. J. his liberal concession, viz. that decency implies natural decency, or such customs, 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 Cross is against the law of nature, that the Preaching without the Surplice bears analogy to the disclosing of nakedness, 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 infer 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 God's worship and service amongst Presbyterians, and when I have called for proof, I have been told, amongst o●her things, that they Baptised without the Cross, that they put up prayers unto God without a Surplice; but that God is undecently worshipped, where such toys as these are omitted, you may stoutly affirm, but can never prove, by so much as one convictive argument: the word necessarily may then very well be inserted, in opposition to the groundless 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 Logic, 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 quarrel at the word necessarily? for do you think in earnest, that decency implies such customs, the omission of which doth sophistically, or at the best, only probably infer undecency, you cannot, I know, harbour so senseless and irrational a thought, and therefore you must say as I do, that decency here implieth only such customs, the omission of which, necessarily infer undecency.  
3. When you say that my rule is in a manner proper to those customs, which the Law, of at least, lapsed Nature prescribes, that limitation in a manner is a backdoor, out of which how fare you may run, I know not, and therefore until you somewhere make a stand, I shall not run after you.  
4. Whereas you fasten upon me this assertion, that decency here implieth only such customs 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 confess, 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 comeliness, in the very place of the Apostle, containeth all natural and civil handsomeness; and in his Reply to Mortons' general Defence, etc. cap. 3. sect. 28. he acknowledgeth the women's veils, 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 fare, 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 custom had recommended it unto them. As for my own part you shall have here my frank concession, that decency here implieth even that decency which is introduced by civil custom, provided,  
1. That it be, consuetudo rationabilis; 
Suarez de legib.  for no other custom 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 God's worship undecent: the equity of this limitation appeareth from this reason, because the Apostles command of decency is not violated but by undecency: This is at large set down in Ames his dispute about humane ceremonies, pag. 77, 78.  
Lastly, your, and my learned friend Mr. Barlow, resolveth and proveth, Exercit. Metaph. p. 29. every moral evil, every evil of sin, to be against the law of Nature, if not proximè and immediatè, yet mediatè ex interventu legis positivae, now the undecency here prohibited by the Apostle is a moral evil, a sin, malum culpae, therefore 'tis at lest mediately against the Law of Nature. Your great and learned Hooker, pag. 95. of his Ecclesiastical Polity saith, that this rule of the Apostle is an edict of Nature, a Canon of that Law which is written in all men's hearts; the Church had for ever, no less than now, stood bound to observe it, whether the Apostle had mentioned it or no. And hereupon I shall infer, that if you or your party do not prove or make good, that the administration of Baptism without the Cross, that Preaching, Praying, without the Surplice, is against the Law of nature, in some sense at least, mediately, he is utterly refuted by Mr. Hooker his interpretation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or notion of decency; and I do not desire to live so long, as to see such a proof as this made.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 15.  
This is indeed his meaning, which (though somewhat darkened in that his expression) will appear but consequent to the two things which he hath premised in this matter from Amesius his notion of decency. p. 64. in marg. 1. that decency requires not that any sacred things be instituted de novo, but only that those things which are instituted by God, be used in that manner which is agreeable to the dignity of them. 2. That as order, so decency belongs to civil offices, as well as sacred things, in which indecorum est vitium oppositum debito illi modo, qui requiritur ad eorum justum finem, & usum consequendum, indecency is a vice opposed to that due manner which is required to the obtaining the just end, and use of those things. Now if in the former of these, the mode he speaks of, as agreeable to the dignity of those things which are instituted, be it self-supposed by him to be instituted by men, then must he acknowledge humane power of instituting ceremonies, which being so contrary to his design, I must resolve not to be intended by him; but rather, that as the sacred things are instituted by God, so the mode which is consentaneous to their dignity is instituted by God also, and that nothing is decent in sacris, which is not so instituted. And so likewise on the second head, that of civil offices. For that indecency, which is a vice or sin, must be contrary to some Law of Gods, and so also that which is opposed to the due manner which is required; and so is necessary either necessitate medii, or praecepti also to obtaining a just end, this sure is more than the omission of an indifferent custom, which may, or may not be continued without any offence against nature, even the omission of strict universal duty, either natural decency, or somewhat that bears proportion with it.   

Jeanes.  
Both Aims and my poor self confess, that God hath by the Canon of the Apostle, and by the light of Nature, appointed and commanded, that decency in his worship and service, the neglect whereof would be undecent; but that he holds that there is need of a special divine institution to render a thing decent, is disclaimed by Aims in several places of his writings: Medul. Theol. lib. 2. c. 14. sect. 24, 25, 26. Hujusmodi igitur circumstantiae, quae suâ naturâ sunt civiles, aut communes▪ non sunt particulariter in scriptures praeceptae, partim, quia in communem hominum sensum incurrunt; & partim, quia infra dignitatem & majestatem legis divinae ess●t, ut talia figilla●im in illa praescribantur, hâc etenim ratione ridieula multa fuissent singulari lege cavenda: Exempli gratiâ, ne in ecclesiastico coetu unus in alterius sinu sese colocaret, in alterius faciem censpueret, aut ne popijmos faccret in sacris actionibus. Habendae tamen sunt tanquam ex voluntate Dei praeceptae. 1. Quia in genere praecipiuntur, sub lege ordinis, decori, & aedificationis. 2 Quia pleraeque earum necessario sequuntur ex iis quae à Deo sunt expressè constituta. Cum enim Deus constituit, ut fideles omnis generis convenirent, ad ipsius nomen & cultum celebrandum, consequentèr etiam instituit, ut idoneum & commodum aliquem locum habeant, in quo possint convenire. & horam etiam assignatam, qua simul p●ssint adesse; c●m etiam minister à Deo sit constitutus ad alios publice instituendos, simul etiam constituitur, ut sedem & situm corporis illum habeat, qui tali actioni congruit.  
25. Illa igitur quae pertinent ad ordinem & decorum, non ita relinquuntur hominum arbitrio; ut possint, quod ipsis libet, sub illo nomine Eccles●is obtrudere; sed partim determinantur generali●us De● praeceptis, partim natura ipsarum rerum, & partim circumstantiis illis, quae ex occasione seize offerunt.  
26. Variae enim ord●is & decori circumstantiae tales sunt, ut nulla institutione publica accedente, debeant tamen à singulis observari, neque possunt ab hominibus prohiberi sine peccato.  
24. Such like circumstances therefore, which of their own nature are civil or common, are not particularly commanded in the Scriptures, partly because they come into men's common sense, and partly because it would not stand with the dignity and majesty of the Law of God, that such things should be severally prescribed in it. For by this means many ridiculous things should have been provided for by a special Law; as for example, that in the Church assembly one should not place himself in another's bosom, spit in another's face, or should not make mouths in holy actions: Yet they are to be accounted as commanded from God: 1. Because they are commanded in general under the Law of Order, Decency, and Edification. 2. Because most of them do necessarily follow from those things which are expressly appointed by God. For when God appointed that the faithful of all sorts should meet together to celebrate his name, and worship, he did consequently ordain that they should have a fit and convenient place, wherein they may meet together, and an hour also assigned at which they may be present together; when also there is a Minister appointed by God to teach others publicly, it is withal appointed that he have a seat which is meet for such an action.  
25. Those things therefore which pertain to order and decency, are not so left to men's wills, that they may under the name of that, obtrude what they please upon the Churches: but they are partly determined by the general precepts of God, partly by the nature of the things themselves, and partly by those circumstances which do offer themselves upon occasion.  
26. For divers circumstances of order and decency are such, as though there be no public institution of them, yet they ought to be observed of every one, neither can men forbidden them without sin. Unto this add another place in his f●esh suit against Ceremonies, disput. pag. 29. We never said, or thought, that all particular rites pertaining to order and decency are punctually determined in the Scripture. We never dreamt, that all such rites being beside the particular determination of the Scripture, are against it, we speak of double, or triple rites as the Rejoinder styleth them, which no mere order and decency doth necessarily require, but only the mere will of man enjoin. That which is instituted by God in his worship, Ames knew very well to be a part of God's worship; but that decency is no part of God's worship, Ames in his disput. pag. 176. proves by a Reason quoted out of Dr. Abbot, Def of Mr. Perk. pag 844 Order and comeliness (saith the Popish Bishop) is some part of God's worship. But (saith Dr. Abbot) who taught him this deep point of Philosophy, that an accident is a part of the subject, that the beauty or comeliness of the body is a part of the body, order and comeliness properly and immediately respect men, and therefore can be no parts of the worship of God. To be instituted by God, if we speak strictly & properly, is to be enjoined by a divine positive Law superadded unto the law of nature; and in conformity hereunto it is that our Author Ames divides God's worship, Med. lib. 2. cap. 5. into natural and instituted: Now if this be your meaning, when you impute unto Ames and me, that our opinion is, that nothing is decent in sacris, which is not instituted by God, as the charge is false in itself, so it proveth not that which you bring it for, viz. that in our sense decency in the Apostle, is only that decency which the law of nature prescribes; but confirmeth the clean contrary, because that which is instituted by a positive law superadded to the law of nature, is not prescribed proximè and immediatè by the law of nature.  
You are by this time, I hope, conscious of the great injury you have done unto poor Dr. Ames, in affixing unto him so irrational an opinion, and hereupon I shall be bold to give you this advertisement, that however you may despise him as a mean Author, unworthy of your perusal, yet, if you undertake to censure and refute him, you must read him, or else you will be very liable unto the breach of the ninth Commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbbour.  
But you will perhaps say in defence of yourself, that if it were not the opinion of Ames, it is the sequel of his words; and for this you have two reasons.  
The 1. because the mode or manner agreeable unto the dignity of sacred things is instituted by God, as the sacred things are instituted by God: But this proposition, if it be particular, proves nothing, and if it be universal, is false, as you might have seen in the next reason of Ames, but that you cannot see wood for trees, as the Proverb is; There is a mode or manner in the use of sacred things agreeable unto their dignity, that is not adequate, proper, and peculiar to them, but common unto civil matters of a grave nature together with them; and this is a matter inculcated by Dr. Ames in many places, which if you had weighed, you would never have troubled the Reader with this objection, Medul. Theol. lib. cap. 14. th': 23. Quamvis igitur hujusmodi circumstantiae vocari soleant à nonnullis ritus & ceremoniae▪ religiosae, aut ecclesiasticae, nihil tamen habent in sua natura, quod proprium est religionis, atque adeo in iis non propriè consistit cultus religiosus, quamvis ex eorum neglectu, & contemptu violatur aliquo modo sancti●as cultus religiosi; quia communis illa ratio ordinis & decori quae aequè convenit religiosis actibus, atque civilibus, à religioso cultu non potest separari, quin aliquo modo laedatur ipsius dignitas & majestas. Although these circumstances of time, place, and other lïke, are wont by some to be called rites, or religious Ecclesiastical ceremonies, yet in their nature they have nothing that is proper to Religion, and therefore religious worship doth not properly consist in them, however by neglect and contempt of such circumstances, the sanctity of such religious worship is in some sort violated, because the common respect of order and decency, which do equally agree to religious and civil actions cannot be severed from religious worship, without diminishing of the sanctity and dignity of it.  
Thus also largely in his Manuduction to the dispute about humane Ceremonies, pag. 55, 56. If men and women come purposely in their best apparel to Church, if they compose themselves to a grave posture, give the upper place to the chiefest persons, and take such to themselves as they may hear the Preacher in, and yet have no exception taken against them for it, if all the places and seats be made cleanly, and fit for a meeting, to be held in a comely fashion, all these are Ceremonies according to the Rejoinder his definition, yet no man but out of contention will affirm, they are merely religious or ecclesiastical: For all these in the same manner, and to the same immediate end, the same persons would do, if the meeting were to hear the Magistrate propound unto them a grave civil business, concerning the Commonwealth affairs. And surely that which remaining the same may be civil, is not merely and properly ecclesiastical, but common to both uses, and rather merely civil, than merely ecclesiastical; because civility is supposed and included in ecclesiastical affairs, but ecclesiastical proceed are not supposed and included in civil. Dr. Jackson in his original of unbelief, pag. 337. doth well observe, that decent behaviour doth change the subject only, not alter its own nature and form, whilst it is used in matters sacred: nor is the habit of civil compliment, or good manners, such an unhallowed weed, as must be laid aside when we come into the Sanctuary. And indeed there is no more reason to shut civility out of the Church or sacred business, than to shut Religion out of the Townhouse, or civil affairs.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 15.  
And so likewise on the second head that of civil offices, for that indecency which is a vice or sin must be contrary to some law of God, etc.   

Jeanes.  
Indecency in things civil, however it may be a vice in Ethics against civility and good manners, yet it is not always a sin in divinity contrary to some law of God: but undecency in things sacred in the worship and service of God, if it be voluntary and avoidable, is against the command of the Apostle, which is a rule of the law of nature, saith Hooker; and this I believe you will not deny in cold blood: and indeed you have no reason to deny it; for it will not hereupon follow that the Apostle enjoineth only that decency which is immediately prescribed by the Law of Nature, and my reason is, because as the Apostle, so the light of Nature enjoineth as that decency the neglect whereof would be undecent by the light of nature; so also that, the omission whereof would be uncomely by civi●● custom, and therefore as undecency by the light of nature is against the light and Law of Nature immediately, so also undecency by civil custom is against the law of nature mediately. The long hair of women is one note by which custom hath distinguished them from men; and therefore 'tis undecent for men to wear such long hair as women, and this supposed, mens wearing of such long hair is a mediate transgression of the Law of nature; whereupon the Apostle propounds this smart interrogation unto the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, 'tis a shame to him? We may say the same of the long garments of women: doth not even nature teach you that if a man wear such garments it is a shame unto him, and very undecent, and yet the undecency thereof ariseth immediately from civil custom, and not from any immediate Law of Nature.   

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

Jeanes.  
That decency in God's worship and service, the neglect of which would be undecent, is necessary both necessitate med●i and praecepti.  
1. Medii is required as a means unto the acceptable celebration of God's worship, but than it is not a means proper and peculiar thereunto, for it hath the same immediate end both in civil and religious matters, and therefore is common unto both.  
2. That it is necessary necessitate praecepti you cannot question, unless you will deny the title and obligation unto the Apostles injunction, for that it binds as an edict of nature we have the testimony of your own Hooker: if this twofold necessity of decency be chargeable with any absurdities, you are as deeply concerned to answer them as myself: indeed that decency, from the omission whereof we cannot infer indecency is necessary, neither necessitate praecepti, nor medii.  
But with such a decency we have nothing to do; for it comes not within the compass of the Apostolical command, and such is the decency of your ceremonies altogether unnecessary; neither commanded by any Law of God, nor necessary as a means for the better service of God. But perhaps you may attempt to prove, that God is better served with your Ceremonies, than without them; when I shall have such proof from you, I shall return it an answer.  
In the mean while let us consider the absurdity with which you charge the assertion of the, but now mentioned, double necessity of decency in God's worship: If that be necessary, necessitate praecepti, or medii, then undecency, say you, which is opposed thereunto, is more than the omission of an indifferent custom, which may, or may not be continued without any offence against nature.  
For answer, the undecency here prohibeted by the Apostle, is either by the light of nature, or by civil custom.  
The former is more than the omission of an indifferent custom, and is an immediate transgression against nature.  
As for the latter, we must distinguish of a twofold consideration of such customs, they may be considered either actu signato in the general, as abstracted from all singularizing circumstances, or actu exercito hic & nunc, as clothed with such and such circumstances, and so they are not indifferent but necessary necessitate both praecepti and medii. I might exemplify this by instancing in the long hair, proper apparel, viz. long garments of women, and the like. There is a passage in Ames, already quoted, that will be here very apposite; Bishop Morton had demanded of him whether the women's veils, 1 Cor. 11. were not a thing indifferent, and 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.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 16.  
Now this being thus far explained, it is time to close with Mr: J. and mind him, what he cannot but know, that the decency which I said, employed custom, is certainly another thing from natural decency, and hath place only in those things, the omitting of which doth not necessarily infer indecency. That omission which necessarily infers indecency, infers it in all that ever did it, or shall omit it: We know in Logic that no proposition is necessary, which is not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, true in the whole species of all, and every one, and I leave it to his judgement, whether he think the Dr. and his party (i.e. Prelatists, I suppose) do conceive, that Adam, (whether in, or out of Paradise) Noah in, or out of the Ark, etc. were obliged to pray in Surplices under pain of indecency? And so (in his other instance) that John Baptist, that Christ, or (because the Text saith that he baptised not, but his Disciples) that those Disciples, even before the death of Christ, might not baptise any without the sign of the Cross, but under the same penalty?   

Jeanes.  
Natural decency is a branch, nay the principal branch of that decency commanded by the Apostle, and therefore I could not think it excluded by you; but withal, I must conclude your interpretation of the Apostle, to be very imperfect and defective, when you said the clear importance of the Apostles words was, Let all things be done according to custom; I was so foolish to suppose that you meant this clear importance of the Apostles words, was also the full importance of them, neither can you assign any reason, why I should think otherwise.  
But that, I see, which so much stumbleth you, is the word necessarily, concerning which I hope you are satisfied by what I have already said, and therefore I shall only add this one thing, that necessarily hath two acceptions.  
1. In regard of an absolute necessity.  
2. In respect of an Hypothetical necessity arising from some  circumstance or condition. Now, I do not restrain it unto either of these senses, but take it abstractively in such a latitude, as that 'tis appliable unto either of the significations according unto the nature of the things spoken of: the omission of natural decency infers undecency necessarily, in regard of an absolute necessity; the omission of civil undecency, infers undecency necessarily only ex Hypothesi: and that inference of indecency which is only necessary ex Hypothesi, is more than an inference thereof, which is fallacious, or at the most but probable; and if we speak of this necessity, it is very false which you say, that that omission which thus necessarily infers undecency, infers it in all that ever did, or shall omit it.  
But you say that, we know in Logic, that no proposition is necessary, which is not de omni true in the whole species of all and every one.  
Unto which I answer, that he who hath any tolerable knowledge in Logic, knoweth that what you say is to be limited only unto that necessity which is scientifical and demonstrative; for to say nothing of such propositions as are necessary only hypothetically, there are divers propositions absolutely in themselves necessary, setting aside all outward circumstances and conditions, which are not yet the omni.  
1. I shall instance in divers particular propositions, as, Quaedam substantia est spiritus: quondam corpus est mixtum.  
2. In several negative propositions, as, nullus spiritus es● corpus: nullus lapis est rationalis. Now these are necessary propositions, because of an immutable truth, and they are not the omni: For,  
1. A particular proposition is not the omni, but de aliquo: And then 2. a negative proposition is not the omni; for the omni is opposed unto that which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de nullo.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 17.  
Nay, 'tis already past question, that Mr. J. in his first argument against my dictate (as he calls it) saith, that the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency, and so not only custom: And if so, then custom is a rule of decency also, and not only the law and light of nature, and where custom, and not the light of nature is the rule, there the omission of that doth not necessarily infer indecency. And of such decency alone it is evident that I spoke, on the head of Uniformity (and could not speak sense, if I spoke, either of any other, or of the general notion of decency, which is compatible to any other) and from thence it follows demonstratively that of that decency of which I spoke (though not of that, of which it is certain I spoke not) still custom is the only rule of decency.  
This therefore I hope may serve in answer to his first charge, that of my timidity, that I dared not say what I said not; together with a view of his concession of the truth of what I did say, and the wary limitation of that concession.   

Jeanes.  
1. I called your assertion, viz. Custom is the only rule of decency, a dictate, and shall call it so still, until you can prove it, and when you bring any solid proof of it, abstracted from your subterfuges, for limitations I cannot call them, I shall be contented to be your vassal.  
2 You seem to intimate, that in the things you speak of, custom, and not the light of nature is the rule, but this is very false; for custom is mensura passiva, as well as activa: When it is a rule of decency, it is first measured and regulated by the light of nature, and without such regulation it is no rule of decency in any matter whatsoever; for custom hath not the force of a law nisi sit rationabilis, that is agreeable unto the dictate of right reason and the law of Nature; the law of Nature than is still the principal rule of decency, speak of what decency you will or can, and custom is but a rule subordinate thereunto, and to be examined thereby.  
3. If you speak of such decency alone, the omission whereof doth not necessarily infer undecency, in respect either of an absolute, or hypothetical necessity, you do not speak of that decency which the Apostle commandeth; for that the Apostle should command such a decency, in the omission of which, men only boldly affirm, or merely opine there is undecency, and cannot make good such an affirmation or opinion, by any other than sophistical, or at the best, but probable arguments, me thinks should not sink into the head of any rational man.  
Yea, but you say, that you could not speak sense, if you spoke either of any other, or of the general notion of decency which is compatible to any other.  
Suppose I grant this, what then? this argument is of little prevalency with me, who am in this particular your Antagonist; for though I acknowledge and admire your great parts and learning, yet I think it not only possible, but probable for you, or any other, though never so great a scholar, to speak nonsense in opposition of the truth.  
2. It is evident and certain that the Apostle spoke of the general notion of decency, which is compatible unto natural decency, and from thence it follows demonstratively, that if it be so certain, that you speak not of this decency, it is as certain that your gloss of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is la●e and maimed; for it leaves out what is chief meant by it, but of this before.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 18.  
Secondly, then to his second charge, the unsufficiency of that limited truth (which is the utmost he will yield my proposition) to prove what I would have from it] It will soon appear of how little force it is, when 1. my meaning was quite another thing from what he affixed to my words, or yielded me in his limited concession, as hath already been largely manifested, and 2. my conclusion is regularly consequent to that which was alone my meaning. This latter the addition of a few words will clear also.   

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

Dr. Hammond. sect. 19  
My conclusion designed in that Section was the justifying of Uniformity of Ceremonies in the service of God, and one of the grounds to support that, the decency of those ceremonies, wherein all should join, and that decency ruled, and judged of by the custom of the place in which such and such a ceremony was an usual indication, and expression of that reverence, which being due from all inferiors to their superiors, is much more due from all Christians to God.   

Jeanes.  
1. Humane ceremonies have two acceptions. 1. They are taken largely for all circumstances of order, decency; as also for all mere indicant signs of reverence, and these for distinction sake may be called circumstantial ceremonies: but these are not the ceremonies in question; for the Non-conformists acknowledge these law full, and so also Uniformity in them; but yet of these ceremonies, custom is neither the only or principal rule, as shall be manifested when I come unto the examination of your Answer unto my Objections against this your dictate.  
In a second place, humane ceremonies are taken strictly, only for such as are doctrinal▪ symbolical, and sacramental, and unto such neither decency nor reverence obligeth us.  
Not, first, the Apostles decency; because in the omission of them there is no undecency.  
Not, secondly, that reverence which is due unto God in his worship, because in the omission of them there is no irreverence committed; you may think my notion of reverence to be too narrow; but 'tis the utmost I can grant you; and indeed 'tis all that Scripture and Reason call for: reverence and irreverence are privatively opposed, and between privative opposites, in a capable subject, there is no medium, either of abnegation or participation, and therefore when there is no irreverence in the external worship of God, that worship is reverently administered: now that Baptism is unreverently administered when the Cross is omitted, or that public Prayers and Preaching are unreverent, when the Surplice is left off, may perhaps be very affectionately averred by you and others, but I do not hope to live so long as to receive from you, or any man living, for it, so much as the shadow of an argument.  
In the first place than you see that reverence bindeth not to humane, religious, mystical ceremonies.  
Nay, in a second place, it bindeth to lay them quite aside, because God's Ordinances are treated very irreverently, when men's inventions are joined with them, when men set their thresholds by God's thresholds, and their posts by his posts, Ezek. 43.8. that is, when humane inventions are added unto God's precepts.  
Yea, but you may perhaps say our Ceremonies are joined with God's Ordinances only as adjuncts, or annexaries, not as parts of God's worship.  
But unto this I reply in the words of Aims unto Morton, all external ceremonies, whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship, as all divinity showeth. Reply unto gen. Def. pag 19  
Thirdly, the pretence of reverence in God's worship, hath oftentimes been an inlet unto many superstitious practices; this Ames showeth in his Reply unto Mortons' particular Defence, &c pag. 69. Out of such conceits as this, saith he, all superstition hath crept into the Sacrament. For expression of reverence, some would not touch the bread with their hands, or the cup either, but have both bread and wine put into their mouths. Some more agreeably to Courtly fashion (urged by the Defendant) where meat is taken with silver forks, instead of hands, devised a silver pipe to suck up the wine through. Some would not have bearded Laymen taft of the wine at all: And many for myere reverence (as they say) will neither touch wine nor bread, abstaining altogether from the Sacrament. All these usages might have been, and may be customary, and yet custom cannot legitimate them and make them decent. I shall conclude all that I have to say unto these two last Sections with a remarkable passage in Parker his Treatise of the ●rosse, part. 1. pag. 112. The second office of the Cross is to procure reverence to aptisme, nè putetur esse communis ablutio: Which is the office of the Salt, the Taper, and the rest of Popish signs, which how cut we off, but with this Axe that beheadeth the Cross as well. Non existimandum, etc. We must not think but that the Baptism of Christ, and of the Apostles was performed with reverence enough, when these signs were wanting; neither must we take upon us to be wiser than they. To procure right reverence to the Sacrament, is to lay open the institution by the Preaching of the Word, and then to deliver it in that simplicity in which we have received it. To add signs over and above is not to honour it, but to defile it. Indeed the A●k had been more honourably entreated, if it had been sent home again as it came into the land and hand of the Philistines. They thought they could not honour it sufficiently, unless they set a budget by it of certain new devised signs to wait upon it, which did defile it. David emptied this budget, and did well: Howbeit, their Cart he thinketh cannot well be spared, for which the Lord made a breach in Israel, until he drove him to confess that he was not sought in due order, as long as one Ceremony of the Philistines did remain. The Lord show mercy to our Church, otherwise he will show, that our emptying of the Popish budget, in banishing the salt, the oil, the spittle, with the rest, will not be judged sufficient, unless we cease also with a Cross of theirs to cart Baptism, which should be born up to reverence no other way than by the shoulders of the Levites, I mean the labours of those Preachers which now (alas) lie in the dust, because they will not defile their hands by touching of this Philistim cart for to uphold it.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 20, 21.  
In these it is certain, custom is the rule and the only rule of decency: Neither nature nor God's Law obliges all mankind to this, or that expression freverence. Several nations have their several manners of doing it; only nature tells us, that the most reverend manner of treating is best becoming God, and that it cannot be decent, to treat God in that manner as we would not do any Superior beside, and Gods own expostulation about the offering of polluted bread upon his Altar, and of sacrificing the lame and the sick, Mal. 1.8. is a confirmation of that; Offer it now, saith God, unto thy Go●ernour, will he be pleased with thee?  
21. Apply this to a particular case, to a Nation, where 'tis customary to address to Kings kneeling, and there the Analogy will hold exactly (but not where that is not custom) Among such I may say, Did ever any man that had his limbs and health offer a Petition to his Prince in the gesture of sitting, or lying along upon a table? and if he did not, than I must, I suppose, regularly conclude from custom, the only rule of decency in such matters, that according to Gods arguing it cannot be decently done in his service, which is the tendering our petitions or requests to that infinite Majesty. And so proportionably in other things.   

Jeanes.  
Your exemplification of the indications and expressions of that reverence of which custom is the only rule, by instancing in kneeling in prayer, when we tender our petitions or requests to the infinite majesty of God, is very impertinent; for it is very evident, that custom is not the only rule of it, because it is sufficiently warranted both by Scripture and the light of Nature.  
Unto all this I shall add a distinction of reverence; it may be taken sometimes largely, and so it comprehends adoration: sometimes strictly, & so it is distinguished there from; for reverence, is due unto the Ordinances of God, adoration, and worship only unto God: custom may be a partial and subordinate rule of the signs of reverence, taken strictly, whereupon by custom, uncovering of the head is a general or common gesture of reverence, to be used with discretion in all religious exercises; but now as for the indications and expressions of adoration, I do think the Scripture a sufficient rule of them, where, I do not exclude the law and light of nature, for materially considered, it is a part of Scripture.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 22.  
This I did not apply to the Cross in Baptism, and the Ministers using of the Surplice, as being not pertinent to that place. Another head was set apart for those, and proceeded to sect. 28. the Cross expressly named, and the Surplice employed under the title of other Ceremonies, of which it may there be seen, what my conclusion was, not what is here deemed incumbent on me to prove, that the omission of them infers indecency, but that standing on th●se grounds, whereon they are known to stand, Conscience duly instructed, cannot think it necessary▪ or tending to edification to cast them causelessly out of this Church, or the whole Liturgy for their sakes.   

Jeanes.  
What you said, was appliable unto the Cross in Baptism, and the Ministers using of the Surplice▪ for your conclusion was, the more than lawfulness of prescription of ceremonies in a Church, and of Uniformity therein; and here sect. 19 you acknowledge that your conclusion, designed in that Section, was the justifying of Uniformity of Ceremonies in the service of God: now I had reason to think that you speak of humane, religious, mystical ceremonies, because such only were opposed by the Non-conformists, and such the Cross and Surplice were, eminently, though no● exclusively.  
2. If your design be to justify doctrinal ceremonies from the Apostles command of decency, then 'tis incumbent on you to prove that the omission of such ceremonies doth infer undecency; for if it doth not infer undecency, than therein there is no transgression of the Apostles precept, and if the Apostles precept be not transgressed by the omission of them, the Assembly had no cause, upon that account, to repent of their casting such ceremonies out of the Church of God.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 23, 24.  
And yet if Mr. J. shall now desire to know what the grounds of these two Ecclesiastical rites are, which alone he is pleased to name, on persuasion, I suppose, that they were as fit, if not fit than any others for the disproving my position, of (custom being the only rule of decency) I shall now render him a brief account of them, such as may in some degree confirm the truth of it.  
24. And first for the Cross in Baptism. 1. 'Tis known to all, that our Christian course is a spiritual Warfare under Christ our great General: Now it is, and always hath been customary over the world, that in a militia there should be some Banner, or Ensign, to which every one should resort, and fight under it. This hath custom made decent among all; and supposing that custom, the omission of it in an Army is indecent, yet not so, as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature are indecent.   

Jeanes.  
1. As our Christian course is a spiritual warfare, so unto this the Ordinances of Christ Jesus are a more suitable Banner or Ensign, than any human invention whatsoever: But you think that the Banner requisite in our spiritual warfare must be of humane invention, not divine institution; for otherwise you speak nothing to the purpose; and if the omission of such a Banner or Ensign be undecent, you may arraign Christ and his Apostles as guilty of undency.  
2. The sign of the Cross hath been a long time used by Antichrist, as an Ensign or Banner, and is it undecent to lay aside the Ensign or Banner of an enemy?  
3. How little weight there is in the customary use of a Banner for the decency of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, will be apparent by these following considerations.  
1. It is a custom in Armies for different companies or troops to have Banners or Ensigns; but it was never the custom of any Armies for every several soldier to carry a Banner or Ensign: from the custom of a Banner or Ensign then, how you can conclude for the signing of every singular Christian with the sign of the Cross passeth my in agination.  
2. The customary use of a Banner is in the whole war, and not only at the first enrolment of Soldiers, and therefore if it prove any thing for the Sign of the Cross, it will conclude for the frequent and constant use of it all the time of our warfare; and this I hope you will not plead for.  
3. A permanent Cross hath more proportion unto the Banners and Ensigns of Armies than the transient and aërial Cross; and yet there be some of your party, who allow of the transient Cross in Baptism, that dislike permanent Crosses in God's worship; because they think there is more danger of superstition in them: Now these men, in all probability, lay no great stress upon this your resemblance of the sign of the Cross to a Banner or Ensign, and my reason for this my conjecture (for I u●ge it only as a conjecture) is, because they reject all permanent Crosses in God's service, which do more resemble a Banner or Ensign than a transient Cross.  
4. I have done my best to sound the depth and strength of your argument, and if I be not deceived, thus it stands: The omission of a Banner or Ensign, in our spiritual warfare, that was used by the Primitive Christians, is undecent; but the sign of the Cross in Baptism was thus used by the Primitive Chrisstians, therefore omission of it is undecent.  
By Primitive Christians, I suppose you do not mean the Apostles, or such Apostolical persons as were guided by an infallible spirit, and then I deny your Major, and for this my denial I shall give you two reasons.  
1. In Christ our great General, the Captain of our salvation, were hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and therefore he knew better what was decent in his worship, than all Primitive Christians, han all the Fathers and Councils that ever were in the world; and therefore seeing there is such a deep silence of the Cross in his word, I shall never think it so highly decent as you pretend, so decent, that the omission of it is undecent.  
2. It is, and always hath been customary over the world, at least in civil and wel-governed Nations, that in a Militia all should be done by Commission derived from the General. Manlius put his own Son to death for fight with an enemy, though he had the Conquest, because it was without order, and L. Papyrius Cursor had, for the same reason, executed Q. Fabius Rutilianus, though he had gained a great Victory over the Samnites, but that the general intercession of the people of Rome pacified him. But now our Prelatists can produce no Commission from our great General, to use any Banner or Ensign in his worship, but such as he hath already instituted, his Word, Sacraments, Discipline, and therefore I shall condemn the usage of any such Banner or Ensign, as a transgression against his Military discipline. Af●er the writing of this, I found this your objection both propounded and answered by S●ha●pius. Scharp. curs. theol. tom. 2. pag 39, 40  
Ob. Milites debent habere signum militare, quo ab aliis distinguantur: At Christiani omnes sunt milites, Eph 6 11. ergo & sig●●m h●bere debent, & per consequens signum crucis.  
Resp. Negando illud conseq quia habent alia signa, nempe internum signum fidei, ●xternam confessionem, & participationem verbi & S●cramentorum, etc. What he speaks of external confession and participation of the Word and Sacraments, will satisfy what you say.  
I cannot here pass by a passage in Whitaker against Duraeus, pag 191, 192. in the Edition of his Works in Fol. Duraeus having cited many Fathers for the Ceremonies added unto Baptism, Whitaker thus replieth unto him: M●â vero non interest quid Clemens, quid Leo, quid Damasus, quid quisquam alius Pontifex ad Baptismi Sacramentum adjecerit. Christus ecclesiae nihil de istis ceremoniarum nugis mandavit, nec in illis ●rebris, quos in scriptura legimus, baptismis, ulla harum rerum mentio reperitur. Nam vero putemus recentiorem ecclesiam melius perspectum habuisse, quibus in Baptismo ceremoniis uti oporteret, quam Christum ejusque Apostolos?  
Before I proceed further, I shall take notice of the limitation that you have in the close of sect: 24. of your affection of undecency in the omission of a Banner in an Army: It is not so undecent, say you, as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature; Now if you apply this unto the omission of a Banner in our spiritual Militia, I thus object against it: The public worship of God is a chief part of our spiritual warfare, and the command of decency in that is, saith your Hooker, an edict or Law of Nature, and whatsoever is therein undecent transgresseth against this Law: If the omission then therein of a Banner or Ensign of humane invention (for of such only you speak) be undecent, 'tis so undecent as things dishonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature are undecent.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 25, 26, 27, 28.  
And the Cross on which Christ was crucified, the Emblem also of that state that every Christian enters into, a constant, courageous patience for all afflictions, was by the Primitive Christians thus used, as their Symbol or Ensign, and every man that is enrolled in the Christian Militia, is by him that inro●les him, signed with it; and this practice being thus founded, and revived in the Church, Saint Augustine's words are worth remembering, and cannot be denied to have truth in them: Signum crucis nisi adhibeatur, five frontibus eredentium, sive ipsi aquae quâ regenera mur etc. nihil ritè perficitur: Unless the sign of the Cross be used either to the foreheads of the believers (who are baptised) or to the water itself by which we are regenerate, it is not duly performed. i e. with such ceremonies as by custom of the Church, the rule of decency, belong to it; and, crucis signo in front hodie tanquam in post signandus es, omnesque Christiani signantur (de Catechiz. rud. cap. 20. tom. 4. p. 915.) thou must be signed now in the forehead with the sign of the Cross, as the Israelites on their door-posts, and so must all Christians. In the forehead particularly 
c Tom. 10. p. 289. B.  in front figat, ubi sedes pudoris, because the seat of shame is there, which we render, in token that the baptised shall not be ashamed.  
26. The usage of this ceremony of signing with the Cross, was, we also know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in 
(d) See Aug. de Civit Dei. l. 2. c. 8.  curing diseales, and casting out Devils, to that Athanasius frequently offirms of it, 
(e) De Incarnate. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Praesente signo crucis obmutescit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Christi terrentur, si impensius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis responsa dare non possunt.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the sign of the Cross all Magic, and Witcheraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waste and empty.  
27. And then Baptism being the exorcising of Devils (the ancient Catechists we know were called Exorcists) the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into God's Sonship and Family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly symbolical, than the use of this in Baptism, according to that of Tertul. de Resurr. Carn. Caro fignatur, ut anima muniatur, the flesh or body is signed, that the soul may be defended or fortified?  
28. And if instead of the 
(f) Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signaculo. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.  frequent use of it among the ancients, even 
(g) Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apostolorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Pallad. Hist. L●us. pag. 1049. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  before the cumbersome weight of Ceremonies came in, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Martyr, Qu. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. pag. 364. in time of prayer we sign those that are any way ill affected) we in our Church retain it only in our solemn entrance into Christs● camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his banner, and in confidence that he that thus signed to Constantine victory from Heaven (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this overcome) will thus give grace, and seal to us victory over our ghostly enemies: what question can there ever be of the perfect decency of this usage among us?   

Jeanes.  
Here you heap up many Testimonies of the Fathers for the Sign of the Cross, unto which it is no difficult matter to add more, but you might very well have spared all this labour; for first, it is not unknown unto you, how your Adversaries hold, that the Hyperbolical say of the Fathers, touching the Cross, are no wales justifiable; hear what Bishop Morton quotes out of the Abridgement, and Mr. High, pag. 237, 238. Sundry of the Fathers put holiness in the Sign of the Cross, and wrote of it very superstitiously. Some telling us that it was a terror against D●vils, attributed a power thereunto of working Miracles; What shall we say? but that the Cross hath been as superstitiously abused by the Fathers, as by the rankest Papists, saving that the Papists have ranked it with divine worship, and so bestowed more honour upon ●t than ever the Fathers did afford it. Bishop Morton hath attempted to give an Answer hereunto, but Dr Ames hath so replied unto him, as that he hath sat down, and neither he, or his Second, have in this rejoined any thing unto Amesius.  
Unto this of the Abridgement, and Mr. High, let me add what Mr. Farker hath observed in the Father's speeches concerning the Cross, Treat, of the Cross, part. 1. pag. 90. Chew a little upon these speech●s, it may be they will tell thy taste how unsavoury the Fathers are, in the matter of the Cross: 
o August. de tempor. 181.  With the sign of the Cross it is that the Body of our Lord is consecrated, and the Font of Baptism sanctified. With 
p Idem Cont. Pelagium. lib. 6 c. 8.  the Sign of the Cross is the wave of Baptism consecrated. 
q Chrysost. in Mat. 16. homil. 55.  By the Sign of the Cross is the Lords Body consecrated. The Font of Baptism sanctified, and all things whatsoever are made holy, they are made holy with the sign of the Lords Cross. 
r Cypr. lib. de bapt.  we glory in the Cross of the Lord, whose virtue worketh throughout all Sacraments: without which sign nothing else is holy, nor any other consecration that cometh to effect. 
s Aug. de Sanct. Serm. 19  With the sign of the Cross is the Fonte of Regeneration made holy; and to speak fully, all Sacraments are perfected by his virtue. 
t Aug. in Johan tractat. 18.  Unless the sign of the Cross be applied to the foreheads of the Believers, or to the water whereby they are regenerated, or to the sacrifice whereby they are fed, none of these are rightly performed. 
u Aug. de utilitat. penitent.  The water of salvation is not the water of salvation, unless being consecrated in Christ's name, it be signed with his Cross. Again. 
w Ambros. de iis qui initiatur. Mist. cap. 3,  The water is good for no use of future health, without the Preaching of the Lords Cross. But when it is consecrated with the Mystery of the saving Cross, than it is tempered to the use of a spiritual washing, and of a saving Cup. As therefore Moses threw the wood into the waters of Marah, and made them sweet, so the Priest sends the Preaching of the Lords Cross into this Font, and the water thereof is made sweet unto grace.  
By this you may see that your allegations out of the Fathers are in vain, unless you had added a proof of their infallibility, or that they are to be a rule of our faith in matters of this nature.  
2. One Papist is found (saith Parker, part. 1. pag. 77.) who saith, the Fathers meant not of the outward sign, but of the thing signified, which is Christ's death: It is well, that we have this confession from him, that the Fathers cannot be justified, in case they mean the outward sign, which they mean undoubtedly, or else our opposites do us great wrong, who object the Fathers against us in the Outward ceremony of the Cross, etc.  
3. Those that are but tolerably versed in the Fathers, cannot but confess, that they ascribe very strange things unto the sign of the Cross; as that it is a necessary requisite of Baptism, that it was an Amulet against the Devil, and an instrument of Miracles, a fence or fortification of the soul against all spiritual adversaries; but these Hyperboles, however you may excuse them, yet they are so gross, as that they are utterly uncapable of any just Apology to be made for them; and this without more ado might suffice for answer unto sect. 25, 26, 27, 28. But I shall farther give you some general exceptions against those testimonies of the Fathers you allege, and next, say something unto them taken severally and apart.  
My general exceptions shall be six.  
The first, the not using of the Cross by Christ and his Apostles, is a greater prejudice against it, than all the countenance can be given unto it by the Fathers of after ages; alas! what are Augustine, Athanasius, Tertullian, etc. whom you quote, in comparison of our blessed Saviour: unto them the Spirit was given but in measure, unto him without measure, Joh. 3.34. And, it was a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and knowledge, Isa. 11.12. and so was able to make ample and sufficient provision for any religious Ceremonies in his Church that he thought requisite: Why should not we content ourselves with those few that he hath ordained? especially seeing no mortal men can produce a patent from him for the institution of any other: and why should we think the omission of the Cross in Baptism undecent? seeing it was omitted by Christ himself and his Apostles; for that it was omitted by them, is confessed by a learned Conformist, Dr. Fulk, in answer unto the Rhemists, pag▪ 252. Neither was the sign of the Cross, saith he, in any estimation with the Apostles, or the faithful in their time. Tertullian indeed, reckoneth signing with the Cross to be an old Tradition, which yet is no more certain to have been used by the Apostles, than other like Ceremonies which he there nameth, as the tasting of Milk and Honey by them that were baptised, and the abstinence from washing for a week after baptism, oblations for birth days, and such other, ●long since abolished, which they should not have been, if they had been ordained by the Apostles as necessary for Christian Religion. As a man runneth to the Fountain, saith Cyprian, when the channels are defiled, so must we repair to the practice of the first Church, which is the Fountain of all piety: non est attendendum (saith he) quid aliquis ante nos faciendum putaverit, sed quid, qui ante omnes est, Christus fecerit, & faciendum praeceperit. Agreeable hereunto is that which Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 100 quotes out of Sadeel against the Monks of Bordeaux. When the Monks of Bordeaux affirm the signs which are added to Baptism, are an ornament to it, we thus reply: Are they wiser than Christ Jesus, who hath ordained his Sacrament in so great purity and simplicity, and who knoweth better than all the men in the world, what ornament was fittest for it? If it be but the covenant of a man, when it is confirmed, no man abrogateth it, or addeth any thing to it: What arrogancy is it then to add to the institution of Christ?  
A second exception of the Non-conformists against the Testimonies of the Fathers for the sign of the Cross, is, that they do not contribute so much honour thereunto, as the suspected infamous birth and original of it doth discredit: In all probabilities, say they, that Devilish Heretic, Valentinus, was the first Author and Father of it, the first that advanced it unto any religious use; and this they prove out of Irenaeus. Parker part. 1. pag. 75 averreth, that it appeareth by the Text of Irenaeus, that Valentinus did use the figure of the Cross, to express one of his Aeones by; and as Valentinus was the Father of it, so Montanus, say they, was the Nurse of it. Dr. Fulk, as I told you, was a Conformit●ant, and no enemy unto the sign of the Cross, so he professeth of himself in his confutation of the Rhemists pag. 87. As for the sign of the Cross, so it be without superstition, we can abide well enough. And yet this man pag. 252. tells us, that Valentinus the Heretic was the first that made any great account of it; and citys for it too Irenaeus, as well as the Non-conformists.  
A third exception against the pretended antiquity of the Cross, and the Testimonies of the Fathers in that behalf, is, that divers Ceremonies Coëval with the Cross are not urged, but abolished, and yet they were never prostituted unto such superstitious and idolatrous abuses as the Cross hath been: And therefore why should the Cross be such a Favourite, as to be retained? This exception you may see thus managed by Parker, part. 1. pag. 39 If our Opposites must needs drink of this Cistern of antiquity, then let the 
q Beat. Rhenan. in Tertul: de Coron. milit. Magdebu●gens. centur. 3▪ cap. 6. tit. rit. Baptis.  Oil itself of Baptism, be revived: Yea, 
r Madgeburg. ex Tertulde Baptist.  Baptising by Laymen; for these be as ancient as the Cross, and sprang about the same time with it. Sure with fare better reason may they rake out of their graves, the ceremony 
s Cypri lib. 3 Epis. 8.  of Kissing the Infant Baptised; the ceremony of the 
t Tertul. de pudicit.  Ring given in Baptism, for an obsignation of Faith and Profession; the ceremony of putting 
u Tertul. lib. de coron. milit.  Milk and Honey into his mouth; And lastly ●he Ceremony of the 
w Idem de Bapt. & Beat. Rhenan. in lib. de coron. milit.  White Garment, wherewith the Baptised was wont to be clothed. These being equal to the Cross, both for Antiquity, and for profitableness of signification, and surmounting it in other respects, as that they were never so much abused as the Cross hath been, nor now import so much peril as the Cross bring eth with it, may give wise men cause to wonder, why those should be buried in a tomb sealed up, while the Cross not only liveth, but also domineereth.  
A fourth exception againsthe ancient use of the Cross by the Fathers, is that it is overbalanced by the Papists abuse of it unto Idolar●y: The Brazen Serpent was ordained by God, and yet when it was abused unto Idolatry, Hezekiah did well to break it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. And therefore the Cross being a humane invention altogether unnecessary in God's worship, is for the Idolattous abuse of it rightly abolished. The force of this consequence may be gathered from what two English Bishops say.  
1. From what Bishop Abbot hath from a translation of a passage out of the Canon Law, Def● of Mr. Perkins part. 1. pag. 168. If our Predecessors have done some things, which at that time might be without fault, and afterwards be turned to error, and superstition, we are taught (saith the Law) by Hezekiahs' breaking the Brazen Serpent, that the Posterity may abolish the same without any delay, and with great authority. The very same words are urged in the like manner by Dr. John Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 510. As also by Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, pag. 347.  
2. From what Jewel saith for the abolition of Images, because of their Adoration, Repl to Hardings Answ: artic 14. pag 383. The best remedy in this behalf, and most agreeable with God's Word, is utterly to abolish the cause of the ill▪ So the godly King Hezechtas took down, and broke in pe●ces the Brazen Serpent; notwithstanding Moses himself by God's special commandment had erected it; notwithstanding it were an express figure of Christ hanging upon the Cross; notwithstanding it had continued so many years; notwithstanding God by it had wrought so many Miracles. So the godly Bishop Epiphanius ●ent in sunder the Image of Christ painted in a cloth; and said, It was against God's commandment, a thing superstitious and unmeet for the Church, and people of God; notwithstanding it were the Image of Christ. So the godly Emperor Theodosius made his Proclamation over all his Dominions in this sort; Signum Servatoris nostri, quocunque l●co reperietur, toll jubemus: We straight command, that the Image of our Saviour be taken down, in what place soever it shall be found: notwithstanding it were the Image of our Saviour. So it is decreed in the late Council of Mentzes, that, when Images happen to be abused by the people, they be either notably altered, or utterly abolished.  
Unto these two I shall add the testimony of Augustine, De Civitate Dei lib. 10. c. 8. Aeneum sane Serpentem propter facti memoriam reservatum cum postea populus errans tanquam Idolum colere coepisset, Ezechias Rex●eligiosa potestate Deo serviens, cum magna p●e●atis laude contrivit. Suppose then, though not grant, that the Ancients lawfully and laudably used the sign of the Cross, as a commemorative sign of Christ's death, and a monitory sign of their duty, yet seeing it hath been made by the Papists such an abominable Idol, there is very good reason for the utter cashiering it out of God's worship.  
A fifth exception is, that our Cross is not the Father's Cross, who never annexed any word unto it, and therefore ours is the more Sacramental; for this see Aims in his Reply to Mortons' particular Def page ●7. As also Mr. Parker part. 1. pag. 114.  
My sixth exception I shall give you in the words of Mr. Parker, part. 1. page 133. What though the custom of the Fathers, who used the Cross for a sign of Christ, were on all sides good, the times do differ. They lived in an age when it was despised; we in a time when it is adored. They in a time when it professed the Faith; we in a time when it is common to Papists. They in a time when it was used over all the Church for the sign of Christianity; we in an age, when out of our own Church it is not where used but for a sign of Antichristianity. In regard whereof we may well appeal to the old Canons, Regulae Patrum traditae sunt (saith Gregory) prout res postulare videbatur, temporis, loci, personarum, reique i●sius habitâ ratione. And Leo, s●cut quaedom sunt, quae nulla possunt ratione convelli, ita multa sunt, quae pro necessitate temporum, ac consideratione aetatum ●porteat temporari.  
But I shall proceed to the examination of your testimonies apart.   

Dr. Hammond.  
Saint Augustine's words are worth remembering, and cannot be denied to have truth in them 
b In Joh. Tr. 118.  Signum crucis nisi adhibeatur, sive f●ontibus credentium, sive ipsi aquae qua regeneramur, etc. nihil ritè pe●ficitur; unl●sse the fie of the Cross be used either to the foreheads of the believers (who are baptised) or to the water itself by which we are regenerate, it is not duly performed, i. e. with such ceremonies as by custom 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 sacrific●o qu● aluntur, nihil eorum ritè perficitur. Saint Augustine here you see approves of the Chrism, and of the crossing of the Oil therein, and sets it check by jowl with the water in Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper; now your friends do hope that you do not concur with him herein; and if you do nor, why do you urge us with the authority of his Testimony?  
2. If you apply Saint Augustine's words to our times, and aver, that they cannot be denied to have truth in them, than your opinion is, that unless the sign of the Cross be used to the water in Baptism, and to the Elements in the Lord's Supper, these Sacraments are not duly performed with such ceremonies, as by custom of the Church, the rule of decency, belong unto them; and than what Apology can you make for the Church of England, that never since the Reformation used any of ●hese Cross.  
3. Suppose Baptism in Augustine's time had been administered 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 Custom of the then Church belonged unto it: and so Fulk, in his Confutation of the Rhemists, expoundeth Augustine's ritè, page 693. but this concludes nothing against us; for we hold that such Baptism hath been ritè, that is, duly, lawfully, and laudably administered, because it would have been agreeable unto Christ's institution, which alone, and not the custom 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 evil, because they plainly seem to assert the necessity of the Sign of the Cross unto Baptism and the Lords Supper. Bellarmine bringeth them to prove, that nothing can be consecrated without the sign of the Cross, de Sacra confirm. lib. 2. c. 13 as also to justify their Cross, that they use in the Mass, de Missa, lib. 3. c. 13. And there's a Popish Ballad mentioned by the Abridgement, and transcribed in Parker, wherein I believe this is one of the places in Augustine, related unto, part. 1. p. 92.  

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

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

Children by it have Christendom,  
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 aught that I can see.   
But the very Canons of the Convocation do disclaim all necessity of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, The Church of England, since the abolishing of Popery, hath ever held and taught, and teacheth still, that the sign of the Cross used in Baptism 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 baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost) the Infant is fully baptised; so as the sign of the Cross being afterwards used, doth neither add 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 front hodie tanquam in post 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 Cross, as the Israelites on their door posts, and so must all Christians.   

Jeanes.  
Whereas you say above, that Augustine's words cannot be denied to have truth in them, you mean these last quoted, as well as the former; and if this be so, than it will be an easy 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 Cross, sounds with me as a very wild and lose inference; and therefore I shall entreat you to confirm it, or else relinquish this place of Augustine, as containing nothing of an argument in it.  
Bellarmine allegeth 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.  illud de sanguine agni posito super utroque post, remotissimum est à Cruse. Hoc solum tenuissimum vestigium; positio in post, nonnihil alludit ad positionem in front; 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 ja●n audiendo, sed bibendo didicistis. Qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur, quando non solum ore corporis; sed etiam ore cordis hauritur. Gretserus excipit; posse unum idemque plura significare. Ita sane, inquam; sed primo variis rationibus. Itaque eadem ratione qua significat sanguinem, non potest significare crucem; At unius loci unica est ratio. Quare fi hoc uno loco 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 eductus; significabit crucem non eductam ex Christo? sanguis, inquam, effusus, crucem compactam?   

Dr. Hammond.  
In the forehead particularly 
c Tom. 10. p. 289. B.  in front figat ubi sedes pudoris) because the seat of shame is there, which we render, in token that the baptised shall not be ashamed.   

Jeanes.  
This weighs little or nothing, unless withal you can prove, that the Apostles command of decency enjoineth, that the seat of shame in the baptised should be marked with the sign of the Cross, in token that he should not be ashamed. Doubtless Saint Paul's practice was suitable unto his precept, and you do not, you cannot pretend, that ever he was signed in the forehead with the sign of the Cross, either by himself or any other: he propounds his example for imitation, and gives this for a reason, that his pattern was that of our blessed Saviour, 1 Cor. 11.1. Be ye even followers of me, as I also am of Christ We shall not then think that so requisite unto Baptism which he never used; so so long as we follow so great a precedent, we shall not be much solicitous, though we swarve from the advice of Augustine, that hath no warrant from the Word of God. Paul makes large professions, that he was not ashamed of the Gospel, which held forth a crucified Christ, Rom. 1.16. Phil. 1.20. 2 Tim 1.12. But no man can say that he ever expressed this his profession by the sign of the Cross; and therefore we shall make no other account of the Sign of the Cross, than as of a supernumerary in God's service; and those Believers that want it, may have confidence when Christ shall appear, and not be ashamed before him at his coming, 1 Joh. 2.28.  
But perhaps you think we must stoop unto the bare words of Augustine, though not seconded with any reason; and this is more than Augustine himself would have expected from us: for after this manner the holy Scriptures alone are to be entertained, as Bishop Jewel proveth against Harding, Def. Apol. Chur. Engl. part. 1. p. 55. out of several places of St. August. Therefore St. Aug. saith, Alios Scriptores ita lego, ut quanta libet sanctitate doctrinâque praepolleant, non ideo verum putem, quod ipsi ita senserint, sed quod id mihi, vel per alios Authores Canonicos, vel probabili ratione persuadere potuerint. Other Writers or Fathers (besides the holy Scriptures) I read in this sort, that be their learning and holiness never so great, I will not think it true, because they have thought so, but because they are able to persuade me so, either by other Canonical Writers, or else by some likely reason. Likewise again he saith, Hoc genus literarum non cum credendi necessitate, sed cum judicandi libertate, legendum est: This kind of Writings (of the holy Doctors and Fathers) must be read, not with necessity to believe each thing, but with liberty to judge each thing.  
Likewise St. Augustine disputing against the Arians, refuseth, as I have said before, both Councils and Fathers, and appealeth only to the Scriptures: Nec ego Nicoenam Synodum tibi, nec tu mihi Ariminensem debes objicere: Scripturarum authoritatibus, res cum re, causa cum causâ, ratio cum ratione concertet. Neither will I allege the Council of Nice against you, nor shall you allege the Council of Ariminum against me. By the authority of the Scriptures let us weigh matter with matter, cause with cause, reason with reason.  
I shall conclude all that I have to say unto the foregoing Testimonies of Augustine (and you may apply it also unto those which follow) with the Answer of Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 293. unto a place quoted out of the 118. Epist. of Aug. ad Januar. Respondeo, Magnum esse Augustini nomen in Ecclesiâ Dei, & merito quidem: Sed meminisse debemus, hominem fuisse, ac proinde errare potuisse. Et licet hoc loco quidem videatur favere Traditionibus, tamen in aliis locis, scripturae perfectionem acerrimè defendit, ut postea melius patebit. Sensit enim apertissimè, nullum dogma reci●iendum esse, quod non scripturis nitatur. Aut●gitur de Traditionibus non necessariis loquitur, aut sibi ipsi non consentit.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 26.  
Secondly, the usage of this Ceremony of signing with the Gross, was, we also know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in 
d See Aug. de civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8.  curing diseases, and casting out Devils, so that Athanasius frequently affirms, 
(e) De Incarnate. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And pag. 102.6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And, Praesente signo crucis obmutescit Paganitas. Aug. T. 4.229. B. And, 832. B. Daemonia nominatâ cruce Christi terrentur, si impensius fiat, fugantur. Dii Paganorum metu crucis responsa dare non possunt.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; by the sign of the Cross all Magic and Witchcraft is brought to naught, all the Idol Temples laid waste and empty.   

Jeanes.  
Bishop Morton in his particular Defence of the Ceremony of the Cross, pag. 231, 232. tells us. That our Church doth not ascribe unto it any miraculous power of driving out devils, or of curing diseases, etc. And what he saith of our Church he speaks by just consequence of the Primitive Church; For our Church (saith he, ibid.) professeth, that she useth it only as primitively it was used; that is, only as a token whereby there is protestation made of a future constancy in the profession of Christianity: If it were used only thus, than it was not used for the miraculous cure of diseases, and chase away of Devils; and this will be denied by none, that knows the force of the exclusive particle only; but you have a higher opinion of the efficacy of the sign of the Cross, than ever Bishop Morton had, or the Church of England, as he thought; and therefore I shall address myself to give some answer unto your miracles of the Cross.  
1. I shall in general say unto them three things.  
1. If there were any such Miracles, as are pretended, they were wrought only at the sign of the Cross, and not by the sign of the Cross (as you bring in Athanasius affirming) so much as by a Moral instrument they were done for the sake only of the faith and prayers of those that used the sign of the Cross, and were consequent unto the sign of the Cross, only per accidens; and for this that I say, Bishop Morton allegeth a saying out of Pe●kins: He confesseth (saith he) that miracles were done of God at the sign of the Cross, that had joined unto it a manifest, or at least a secret invocation of the name of Christ crucified: so that the virtue was not to be imputed unto the sign of the Cross, but unto the faith of the worker, and invocation of Christ.  
2. Many Miracles were wrought by the Brazen Serpent; for it came to pass, that if a Serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the Serpent of Brass, he lived, Numb. 21.9. Yet Hezechias broke it in pieces, 2 King. 18.4. and the reason is assigned why he did so; for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it. This fact of Hezechias is praise worthy; and therefore it was no evil act to throw aside the sign of the Cross: for suppose, though not grant, that Miracles were wrought by it, yet the Papists have burnt incense unto it: for as Dr. Rainolds in his Conference with Hart, page 509, 510. It is written in your Masse-book, that in solemn Masses, the Priest having made obeisance to the Cross, doth incense it thrice: The Jews gave 
u Exod. 30.8.  the honour of God to creature, in that they burned Incense to it. And therefore Hezechias did cala it brazen stuff; as if you should call your Rood wooden stuff; your Agnus● Dei's waxed stuff, your Crucifixes and Crosses made of Copper, Copper-stuff, because you impart the honour of God to them, by putting trust and hope in them. And if 
x Eph. 5 5.  the covetous man be called an Idolater, because he maketh money his God, not as though he thought the coin to be God, but because he trusteth to live and prosper by it, 
y Jer. 17.7.  which confidence and hope he should repose in God only: then worship you the sign of the Cross as an Idol, because you trust to be saved by it, as in your 
z Breviar. Roman: Sabat. quarta▪ quadrag.  Church service you profess notoriously, and 
a Thom. Aqu●n. Sum. Theol. part. 3. quaest. 25. art. 4. Andrad. orthod. Explicat. lib. 9  so yourselves confess, you worship it as God; wherefore if 
b 2 Kings 18 3.5.  Hezechias be praised by God for breaking in pieces the Serpent of brass, because the children of Israel did burn Incense to it, we who have removed the sign of the Cross, because you put the hope of salvation in it, may content ourselves to be dispraised by men. But if you say therefore, that we be against the ancient Fathers in Religion, because we pluck down that which they did set up, take heed left your speech doth not touch the Holy Ghost who saith that Hezechias 
c ver. 6.  did keep God's commandments which he commanded Moses; and yet withal saith, that 
d ver. 4.  he broke in pieces the Serpent of brass which Moses had made.  
3. A third answer shall be that which Cartwright giveth concerning those Miracles which the Rhemists allege were done by the use of Holy Wa●e, and the sign of the Cross: In all which, and the like Miracles (saith he, page 303) not to overthrow their credit; we yet further answer, that the good success that these means had, prove no more the lawfulness of them, than the sacrifices of living men amongst the Gentiles unto their Idols, accompanied with some desired issue out of their troubles wherein they were, prove the lawfulness of that horrible and most detestable worship of their God.  
4. That the former use of the sign of the Cross in Miracles, obligeth not to a use of it (now all miraculous use thereof is by the general confession of Protestants ceased) may be gathered, in a way of Analogy and proportion from what the  Bishop Morton speaks, pag. 58. of Spittle and Oil: We confess that spittle was used by our Saviour Christ, in healing of the dumb; and oil by the Apostles, in curing of many other diseases; yet both miraculously: but to imitate the work of a Miracle without the miraculous power, is but an apish 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for to hold such a miraculous ceremony, after the virtue be gone, is but to preserve a carcase, because it had been once possessed of a soul.  
From this general Answer proceed we to some particulars of the Crosses efficacy.  
1. You say that the usage of this Ceremony of signing with the Cross, was we also know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) in curing diseases. But now for this frequency you only quote in the Margin Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 22. cap. 8. And in that place there is but one instance of any cure wrought upon the usage of the sign of the Cross, and that in Innocentia, a Carthaginian Matron, and the story hereof I shall give unto the Reader, as it lieth in the Book and Chapter quoted.  
In eadem Carthagine, Innocentia religiosissima faemina de primariis ipsius civitatis, in mammilla cancrum habebat, rem, sicut medici dicunt, nullis medicamentis sanabilem. Aut ergo praescidi solet, & à corpore separari membrum ubi nascitur, aut, ut aliquanto homo quietius vivat fomentis est pestis mitiganda frequentibus. Nam ut inde mortem quantumlibet tardius aff●turam confidamus, secundum Hippocratis, ut fertur, sententiam, omnis est omittenda curatio. Ho illa à perito medico, & suae domui familiarissimo acceperat, & ad solum Deum se orando converterat. Admonetur in somnis appropinquante pascha, ut in parte faeminarum observanti ad baptisterium, quaecunque illi baptizata primitus occurrisset, signaret ei locum signo crucis Christi, fecit, & confestim sanitas secuta est.  
In the same Town one Innocentia a most religious woman, and one of the principal in the City, had a Canker on her breast, a kind of sore which the Physicians told her is utterly uncurable: wherefore they use either to cut the infected part away, or for the prolonging of the life a little while in some ease, the malady is to be assuaged and mitigated with frequent plasters; for the opinion of Hypocrates will induce us to believe, that death will thence ensue, though somewhat slowly: for he, as they say, doth advise to omit all attempt of curing it; this a skilful Physician her familiar friend told her; so that now she sought help of none but the Lord, who told her in a dream, that Easter next, which then drew near, she should mark on the woman's side by the Font, what woman she was, that, being then baptised, should first meet her, and that she should entreat her to sign her sore with the sign of the Cross of Christ: She did it, and was cured.  
But the Miracles related in this Chapter are of a suspected credit, it seemed unto Ludovicus Vives to be a matter without doubt, that many things in this Chapter were added, etc. by those, who with their filthy hands have defiled all the Writings of great and famous Authors: In hoc capite non dubium, quin multa sint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum scripta spurcis suis manibus contaminabant, etc. Of this annotation of Ludovicus Vives Rivet speaks thus, Critic. sacr. pag. 453. Lud. Viu. ad cap. 8. lib. 22. In quo miracula multa narrantur, quae omnia non sapiunt exactam judicii limam, quam in aliis August. operibus lectores sagaces observant, annotat, in hoc capite non dubium, quin multa sint addita, velut declarandi gratia, ab iis, qui omnia magnorum autorum scripta spurcis suis manibus contaminabant: Huic nothae non refragantur censores Belgici in indice expurgatorio: neque Hispani inquisitores in suo: quod ideo no●andum lectori, ne semper quae ex  is autorum libris afferuntur, genuina esse putet, quod per Monachorum corruptelas non licet. Hîc igitur etiam opus est sagacitate, & judicii libra. Chamier in reference to another passage in the Notes of Lud: Viu. passeth this censure upon other miracles, alleged by Papists from that place of Augustine to justify their Invocation of Saints, de Vigesim: Octau. lib. de Civit. Dei: Possum ex Vive dicere, multum in eo lusisse sciolorum lasciviam, aut potius superstitiosorum audaciam: the Divines of Rheims in their Annotations on John 14.12. charge Protestants, that they discredit, as other Miracles, so in particular, those testified by St. Augustine in this place; and unto this charge neither Fulk nor Cartwright entered any dissent, and therefore it is probable that they acknowledged it: whereas Fisher in his Answer to the Questions propounded by King James, goes about to justify the Oblations made to Saints by some of the Miracles here recorded, said to be done at their Tombs and Shrines, Dr. Francis White seems to think that a doubt of the truth of some of these Miracles is defensible, because, saith he, these things were extraordinary; and the credit of divers of them dependeth upon fame (which is many times uncertain) 
b Tertul. Apol. c. 7. cur malum fama? Quia velox, an quia plurimum mendax? quae nè tunc quidem cum veri aliquid adfert fine mendacii vitio est detrahens, adjiciens, demutans de veritate.  and Saint Augustine himself saith, they are not commended unto us by such weighty authority, as that without all doubt they must needs be credited 
c Aug. de civet. Dei lib. 22. cap. 8. non tanta ea commendat authoritas, ut sine difficultate vel dubitatione credantur.  they cannot be sufficient grounds or foundations of Catholic Doctrine or Practice.  
2. You say that by the sign of the Cross all Magic and Witchcraft is brought to nought.  
1. Surely, Sir, if ever the sign of the Cross had such an influence, it is questionable, whether there was ever any word or promise of the Lord for it, and without such word or promise, to use the sign of the Cross for such a purpose, was virtual and interpretative Witchcraft.  
Besides 2. if it were so efficacious against Magic and Witchcraft in the Primitive times, yet, that since it hath been abused unto Magic and Witchcraft, is confessed by Bishop Abbot, a man of great piety and learning, part. 1. pag. 169. But since the Harpy of Rome hath had the handling of it, and made it a matter of Magical Enchantment, and through the current of her profanations, it hath run into the hands of Conjurers, Charmers, Witches, to be defiled with their devilish and damnable practices, we have had a religious care to clear the first Church in the using of it; but no further to use it ourselves than it may be washed from the soil and filth of these abominations.  
3. By what you say in the Margin out of Athanasius and Augustine, you insinuate a great efficacy of the sign of the Cross in the routing and chase away of Devils: unto this I answer:  
1. That the whole Armour of God, the complete harness of the Spirit, dererres not Satan from assailing the best and most perfect of Christians: Christ's unspotted innocency, and his absolute all-fulness of Grace, was temptation proof, and yet the Devil adventured upon the assault of him, and therefore it is very strange that he should be so perilously, and terribly afraid of so weak a shield as the sign of the Cross in the forehead: No, no, saith Fulk, in answer to the Rhemists, pag. 69.4. the Devil is too crafty and strong to yield to so weak a weapon, but when he is disposed to play with men, that they may more easily be seduced by him.  
2. It is but a sorry Sophism, to conclude the Devil's terror at the sign of the Cross, from his running away upon then see thereof; for this might be done out of design to get ground upon men, to return upon them with the more advantage: It might be like the flight of an Enemy to draw into an Ambuscado, into the superstition of the Cross, that hath since so prevailed. It is to be feared therefore, that that which the Pharisees blasphemously spoke of Christ, may truly be objected unto the sign of the Cross, that it hath cast out Devils by Beelzebub the Prince of the Devils. Hear what Whitaker says of the Devils fear of the sign of the Cross, Tom. 1. pag. 390. Hoc omnium interim memoriis infixum esse debet, Daemonem esse callidum, versutum, versipellem, fallacem, mendacem. praestigiatorem. Fingit igitur se timere signum crucis, ut faciat nos externo magis signo confidere, quam Christo ipsi crucifixo.  
3. Some excuse the Fathers, as if they held, that the sign of the Cross drived away Devils ex opere operantis, only by the faith and prayers of those that used it; but others think, that they held it to be done ex opere operato, by the Ordinance of God; and they give this reason, because they held it to be done by aliens and unbelievers, by Pagans and Jews, who had not the Christian Faith. Naz●●●zene relates, how that Julian the Apostate being about some fears of Necr●●●●, the Devils that he had conjured ran all away, when he by chance had made the sign of the Cross, without any purpose or thought of a Miracle; for he marvelled at the matter, as that which was more than he expected: And Gregory reports that a Jew, as yet unconverted unto the Faith of Christ, being benighted, and taking up hi● lodging in a Temple of Apollo, routed a great multitude, or Troup of Devils that were there assembled, by signing his forehead with the sign of the Cross: Unto these examples Bellarmine, Eccles. Triumph. lib. 2. cap. 30, adds the testimony of Augustine: Quare S. Augustinus lib. 83. quaestionum, qu. 79. dicit indictum à Deo Daemonibus ut cedant cruci, tanquam sceptro Summi Regis, quomodo populi militibus cedunt, cum ab illis profertur signum Imperatoris: Nec mirum est, inquit, quod haec signa valent, cum à bonis Christianis adhibentur, quando etiam cum usurpantu● ab excraneis▪ qui omnino suum nomen ad istam militiam non dederunt, propter honorem tamen excellentissimi Imperatoris valent, Cum autem non cedunt his signis hujusmodi potestates, Deus ipse prohibet occultis modis, cum id justum, atque utile judicat; nam nullo modo ulli spiritus ●●●ent haec signa contemnere: Conrimescunt haec, ubicunque illa prospexerint. By 〈◊〉 you may see, how fare the Fathers went in their opinion touching the efficacy of the Cross, and I am so charitable as that I think you do not come up unto them herein, and if you do not, you have no reason to press me with their say.  
3. You say out of Athanasius, that by the sign of the Cross, all the Idol Temples were laid waste and empty: I could wish that you had exemplified this by some instances, that we might have considered of what weight they had been: The Papists of the Seminary of Rheims have referred us unto a famous story in Theodoret, which saith Fulk, pag 694. is a Miracle wrought by Marcellus Bishop of Apamea in serting the Temple of Jupiter a fire, with sprinkling of water, after he had signed it with the Cross, and prayed, when it would not burn with fire: This is a pretty story, if true, and will serve aptly for your purpose: But, Sir, we shall hope for so much charity from you, that you will nor brand for Infidels, all, that have not saith strong enough to swallow these Miracles of the Cross. Theodoret might have this at the second hand, and he himself might be deceived, though he were unwilling to deceive, and in all ages devout and well-meaning persons have been over-credulous in entertaining counterfeit and feigned Miracles.  
As for the places quoted out of Augustine, I cannot find them in Frobenius his Edition of Augustine, and I have no other, and therefore I think you follow some other Edition; but the thing is not material; for I hope, that what I have said already will be a satisfactory answer unto them.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 27.  
And then Baptism being the exorcising of Devils (the ancient Catechists we know were called Exorcists) the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into God's Sonship and family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly symbolical, than the use of this in Baptism, according to that of Tertullian, de Resurr. Carn. Caro signatur, ut anima muniatur, the flesh or body is signed, that the soul may be defended or fortified.   

Jeanes.  
Your ordinary Readers will think you Conjure, when they hear you term Baptism an exorcising of Devils; for they never heard of any Exorcism in Baptism, save of the Papists, which our Divines brand for Magical; and whether this expression might not have been forborn to avoid all appearance of evil, in compliance with Papists in their use of Exorcism. I shall not determine, but leave it unto your own prudence to think of. Whereas you say, that the ancient Catechists were called Exorcists, the reason of this may probably be, because the Catechumeni were exorcised before Baptism, Aquin. Sum. part. 3. quaest. 71. artic. 2. But I shall not contend about this with you, for fear I should be thought as very a fool as the Philosopher, who read a Lecture of War before Hannibal. There is a passage in Augustine that seems to favour somewhat what you say, Tom. 7. pag. 577. Ab hac igitur potestate tenebrarum, quarum est Diabolus princeps, id est, à potestate Diaboli, & angelorum ejus quisquis erui, cum baptizantur, negaverit parvulos, ipsorum ecclesiae sa cramentorum veritate convincitur, etc. In veritate itaque no● in falsitate potestas diabolica exor●●zatur in parvulis, eique renunciant, quia per sua non possunt, per corda & ora gestant●m, ut eruti à potestate tenebrarum in regnum sui Domini transferantur. Unto this testimony I believe it is easy for you to add many more.  
But yet notwithstanding all this, it is very well known, by all that know the difference betwixt the Predicaments, that the Sacrament of Baptism cannot be said to be the Exorcising of Devils, the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan, the delivery of him from the tyranny, otherwise than in an improper, tropical, and metonymical praedication, viz. as it is a sign and seal, and if you will, a moral instrument of the conditional promise thereof.  
But what advantage reap you unto your cause by this? why unto this Exorcising of Devils, the rescuing a person from the power of Satan into God's family, the use of the Cross in Baptism is exactly symbolical? Your argument (if there be any argument in your words) as I conceive, stands thus: That which is so exactly symbolical unto any thing signed, sealed, conveyed, and exhibited in Baptism, is so decent, as that the omission thereof would be undecent: but the use of the Cross in Baptism is exactly symbolical unto that which is signed, sealed, and conveyed, or exhibited in Baptism, viz. the Exorcising of Devils, the rescuing a person from the power of Satan into God's Sonship and Family, therefore the use of it is so decent, as that the omission thereof would be undecent; you cannot but expect that the Major will be denied, and 'tis very strange that you leave it destitute of all proof; for you cannot be ignorant if you have read the Non-conformists, whom you oppose, that their great quarrel against our Ceremonies, was their symbolicalnesse and mystical signification; their arguments against which you may read at large in the Abridgement, page 41, 42, etc. usque ad 49. Ames his Reply to Mortons' General Def. page 33, 34, etc. usque ad 58. As also in his Triplication to Dr. Burges Disp. about humane Ceremon. page 209, 210. usque ad 336. Parker. Treat. of the Cross, part 1 page 97, 98, etc. usque ad 112. Didoclave, page 522, 523, etc. usque ad 536.  
But, Sir, you may think to blow off all the Arguments with a silent scorn and contempt, and this indeed many do with those arguments which they cannot answer; but if you will not vouchsafe to read these Authors, if you please to accept of my service, I will abridge the substance of their arguments, and attend your answer unto them.  
Then, for the Minor, I have four things to say unto it.  
1. Baptism itself is more proper, agreeable, or exactly Symbolical, unto the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into God's Sonship and Family, than the sign of the Cross; and therefore the sign of the Cross in Baptism is a superfluous supernumerary, like the dim and smoky light of a candle in the presence of the clear and glorious light of the Sun at noonday.  
2. The Popish Exorcism and Exsufflation are as, if not more, proper, agreeable, and exactly symbolical, unto the Exorcising of Devils as the use of the Cross in Baptism, and they have not been so much abused as it, and may as easily be purged from all Superstition and Idolatry, and therefore you may as well conclude concerning them as the Cross, that they are so decent as that the omission of them would be undecent.  
3. I much question whether or not two cross motions of a finger or a thumb be so proper, agreeable, and exactly symbolical, unto so high, dreadful and profound a mystery, as the delivery of us from the power of Satan and darkness, and the translation of us into the kingdom of the dear Son of God, as you affirm; and I shall hardly believe you, unless you bring other proofs, besides the Hyperboles of the Fathers.  
As for that which in confirmation of the Minor, you quote out of Tertullian:  
1. It is urged by some, not only for the signification, but also for the operation and efficacy of the Cross, and whether you will go so far I cannot tell.  
2. Unto it Mr. Whitaker, when urged by Papists for Traditions, gives this answer, Tom. 1. pag. 390. At anima side contra Satanam munienda est, non cruse. Veteres quidem se hoc signo adversus Daemonas munitos esse putârunt, sed hoc ex haeresi Montani fluxit.  
And of him Mr. Fuller in his History of the University of Cambridge pag. 125, gives this deserved character; He was one so exactly qualified, that the Professors Chair may seem made for him, and he for it, they mutually so fitted each other.  
3. I would desire to know, how you like the companion of the Cross in Tertullian, the holy oil? caro ungitur, saith he, in the words immediately foregoing, ut anima consecretur: but perhaps you are for the reviving of that, as well as for the using of the Cross; and some stick not to say, that 'tis as ancient as the Cross.  
One thing more I cannot but remember you of, before I leave this Section, and it is a distinction of mystical signification by the learned and reverend Morton, the word mystical signification hath two acceptions, saith he, General Def. pag. 52. The one Sacramental, by signification of grace conferred by God; the other is only Moral, by signification of man's duty and obedience towards God. The ceremonies which we defend (saith he) are only mystical Moral, not Sacramental; and for his disclaiming these, he gives this reason, page 53, 54. A sacramental sign (being, as sacramental, so likewise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a seal of God's promises, 
Rom. 4.  as the Apostle calleth Circumcision) is always founded upon the express Covenant of God, therefore none but the Author of the Covenant may institute or appoint any such sign. For whosoever shall undertake to add a seal unto the Will and Covenant of any Testator amongst men, is forthwith held Falsarius, and thereby made obnoxious to the Law, and liable to the grievous judgements of man: How much more damnable an Act were it for any to affix any sign, properly Sacramental, unto the Testament of our Lord Jesus? which whosoever shall attempt to do, becometh guilty of sacrilegious depravation of the blessed Mysteries of Salvation.  
Now you make the sign of the Cross to be that which Morton calls a Sacramental sign; for he describes a Sacramental sign to be that which signifieth Grace conferred by God: & is not the rescuing of a person from the power of Satan into God's Sonship and Family (as for your other expression: Baptism is the Exorcising of Devils, I am not much delighted with the repetition of it) a grace conferred by God? and unto this you say the sign of the Cross is exactly Symbolical, and therefore a Sacramental sign.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 28.  
And if instead of the 
f Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signaculo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3.  frequent use of it among the Ancients, even 
g Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apostolorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, apud Pallad. Hist. Laus. pag. 1049. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  before the cumbersome weight of Ceremonies came in (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, saith the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Martyr, Qu. ●in pag. 364. in time of Prayer we sign those that have any need of it, those that are any way ill affected) we in this our Church retain it only in our solemn entrance into Christ's Camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his Banner, and in confidence that he that thus signed to Constantine Victory from heaven (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in this overcome) will thus give grace, and seal to us victory over our ghostly enemies, What question can there ever be of the perfect decency of this usage among us?   

Jeanes.  
Here the argument to prove the perfect decency of the usage of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, is the frequent religious use of it amongst the ancients; I say the religious use, because we oppose not the civil use of it in Coins and Banners. But  
1. You know, it is generally denied by the Non-conformists, that the frequent use of the Cross amongst the Ancients was lawful and justifiable, and until this be cleared, your argument will be little better than Petitio principii.  
2. Bellarmine useth the like argument, de Missa lib. 2. cap. 15. for their cross in the Mass, having quoted divers Fathers for the antiquity of the sign of the Cross, who teach that it is to be used in every business: he propounds hereupon an interrogation, very like unto that of yours: Quod si in omni negotio signum crucis adhibendum, cur non in actione tremendi sacrificii? But this perhaps startles you not.  
3. I demand whether the use of the Cross amongst the Ancients was decent or undecent? If it was decent, then why was it abrogated? If it was undecent, then how can you infer therefrom, the perfect decency of the use of the Cross in Baptism?  
But though I do not deny the frequent use of the Cross among the Ancients, yet I have something to observe concerning the witnesses which you allege therefore.  
The first is Tertullian de Cor. Milit. cap. 3.  
But this Book was written by him when a Montanist, this is confessed on all hands, but I shall content myself with the naming only of two Witnesses.  
The first is a moderate Conformist, Doctor Whitaker, Tom. 1. pag. 392. Respondeo, Tertullianum faisse Montanistam, quando hunc librum scripsit. Facit enim mentionem novarum prophetiarum, quarum Montanum inventorem fuisse, dubium non est. Fuit vero Montanus multarum Traditionum author, quae postea extirpari non poterant. Dixit, se habere illum paracletum, quem promisit Christus; & fretus hujus paracleti authoritate, multa 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiam invexit. Impius hic Montanus Tertullianum ipsum fefellit, cujus viri jacturam casumque merito lugere possumus. Illo enim tempore nullus d●ctior, nullus sanctior, nullus pro fidei Christianae defension vehementior fuit Tertulliano. Sed haeresis illa Montani omaem Tertulliano fidem detraxit. Sic enim Hilarius ait, in Comment. in Matth. Canon. 5. Quanquam & Tertullianus (inquit) hac de●re aptissima volumina scripserit, consequens error homi●i● detraxit scriptis probabilibus authoritatem. Hieronymus verò, in lib. contra Helvidium affirmat, eum Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse. Et in Catal. de Te●talliano idem ait, eum multa contra Ecclesiam scripsisse; & reverâ scripsit. Quae cum ita fint, quàm absurdum est, Montanicas Traditiones Tertulliani nomine nobis obtrudere.  
The other is a zealous and rigid pleader for humane religions Ceremonies, Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity, pag. 65, when Tertullian disputed against the Christian soldiers wearing a Crown or Garland on their heads, when they receive their Donative; He was a Montanist, and an enemy unto the Church, for condemning that prophetical spirit, which Montanus and his followers did boast they had received, as if in them Christ had performed his last premise; as if to than he had sent the Spirit, that should be their perfecter and final instructor in the mysteries of Christian truth. Which exulceration of mind made them apt to take all occasions of contradiction. Wherefore in honour of that action, and to gall their minds, who did not so much commend it, he wrote his book De Cotona Militis, not dissembling the stomach wherewith he wrote it.  
2. The Cross which Tertullian speaks of, would be a weight cumbersome enough without any other Ceremony, and this cannot be denied by such indifferent persons as will read his words at large; for thus they are, Ad omnem progressum, atque promotum, ad omnem additum, & exitum, ad vestitum, ad calceatum, ad lavaera, ad mensas, ad lumina, ad cubicula, ad sedilia, quandocunque nos conversatio exerce●, frontem crueis signaculo terimus. Here you see, that the Crossing in Tertullia's time was at every step, at every coming to and going out, at the appareling themselves, at washing, at eating, at lighting candles, and at sitting, etc.  
3. The frequent use of the Cross, mentioned by Tertullian at every step, and in every action that we do, was not, could not be decent, because it could not but be a great hindrance, disturbance, and distraction unto the more necessary, and important actions of men's lives, especially seeing you will say, it was to be accompanied with inward action of the soul suitable thereunto: now how can that, which is not decent in itself, derive that, which it hath not, unto another: this perpetual Crossing, was so fare from being decent, as that it was ridiculous; and should we now see a man after this manner crossing of himself, we would think either that he was out of his wits, or else that he was transported with such delusions of Satan, as the Quakers are now, or the Montanists were in Tertullia's time.  
A second witness is Palladius de Historia Lausiaca. This Author I suspected to be fabulous by the two tales related out of him by Bellarmine, de Reliq. & Imaginib. Sanctorum, cap. 29. and I cannot but wonder that you should allege him, considering the character that Hierome and Epiphanius give of him; but not having the Book in my own Study, I sent unto a friend in Oxford, to make some search after the place, and in a short time this answer was returned unto me.  
What authority is to be given to that quotation out of Palladius concerning Hippolytus, whom he would have to be Apostolorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 
Quest.   
None at all, or very little: For  
1. Palladius, he lived in the end of the forth Century, anno 389, 
Answ.  says 
a In Chronelog. Authorum praefixa Hist. vet. Patrum Paris. 1583.  Laurentius de la Bar, Bellarmine (descript. Eccles. pag 156. in Palladio, puts him ad annum 390) saith he was coetaneous with Hierom and Ruffian, and a man of no great repute. Reprehenditur (saith 
b De Scriptor. Eccles in Palladio pag. 156.  Bellarmine) ut Origenista Pallactius (saith 
c Preaemio adversus Pelagianos ad Cresiphentem.  Hierome) servus nequitiae, candem haeresim instaurare conatus est, & novam translationi calumniam Hebraicae mihi struere, nunc quoque mysterium iniquitatis operatur And at the same time Epiphanius, 
d Epist. 60. apud Hieron.  Palladium, qui quondem nobis ●harus fuit, & nunc misericordiâ Dei indiget, cave, quia nunc Originis baeresim praedidicat, etc. And though he seemed afterwards to have forsaken his Heresies, yet (if we may believe 
e In Apparatu Sacro. pag. 60. Palladius pag. 207.  Possevine) Mutavit personam, non animum.  
2. This Historia Lausiaca, was called so, not by Palladius himself, who inscribes it thus 
f Vide Palladium graecè editum per Jo. Meursium pag. 1.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Paliadii Episcopi Historia vitas sanctorum Patrum continens. But because he dedicated that History, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Lauso Praeposito, to an eminent man then in authority; so it was that from this Lausus it was called Lausiaca.  
3. This Narration of Hippolytus here cited, occurs in the 
g In Hist. Vet. Patrum per Laurentium de la Bar, cap. 1.9. pag. 88 who puts these words in the Margin, Crucis signum tempere Apostolor. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. MS. in Bibl. Bodlianâ. Palladius graecè per joh. Meurs. Lug. Bat. 1616. 4●.  Latin Edition of Palladius by Gentianus Hervetus, thus, Quae cum sic fecisset, & se totam signo crucis muniisset, egressa est, etc. He speaks of a Corinthian Virgin, a Christian, damned by the Judge to the Stews, out of which place she escaped (a pious young man giving her the ) in man's apparel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (that is, putting on man's apparel) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and signing herself all over with the Mystery of the Cross, she escaped safe. So the story is, in the Greek Edition by Meursius pag. 154. what other Greek copy the Doctor made use of, I know not; he citys pag. ●049. whereas in Meursius his Edition there are but 212. pages in all.  
3. He tells us where he had this Fable, or History (for Palladius does not affirm it to be true) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i.e. in alio libello, qui inscribebatur (Hippolyti ipsis Apostolis cogniti, seu Apostolorum coaetanei) Istiasmodi Natrationem inveni: And then he tells this story of the Corinthian Virgin.  
4. So that the Sum is: He found a Pamphlet (for so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies) which was inscribed to Hippolytus, who was known to the Apostles, but that it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a false and spurious inscription, he tells us not, only he found a Pamphlet so inscribed.  
2. It is very likely he had no great opinion of that Pamphlet, for than he would have told us so, to give reputation to the story. For in the very next 
h Palladius ex Edit. Joh Meursii, pag. 152. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  story before this, which is concerning a Virgin called Juliana, he tells us, he had it out of a most ancient book of Hymns, writ by origen's own hand, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; whereas he hath nothing of this, but that he saw a Pamphlet so inscribed.  
3. And this is more probable, because I find not any Ecclesiastical Historian (or other Author) mention any such Hippolytus, who was Apostolorum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
4. Nor is there any foundation in Antiquity, in the testimony of any good Author, that any such Crossing was used in the Apostles time, though I know in Tertullia's time, and afterwards, it grew much in fashion, especially in the fourth Century in the time of 
i August in Evang. Joh. Tract. 118.  chrysostom 
k Chrysost. demonstrat quod Christus si● Deus  Augustine,. and this Palladius, who was Bishop of Helenopolis, and this is confessed by 
l In his Conference with Hart, page 504. Edit. London, Anno 1598.  Dr. Rainolds against Hart (where you have much about Crossing) who denies (and justly too) that any such use of the Cross was used in the Apostles times, nor do I find any affirm it, but they of Rome, who (against all reason and antiquity) would have all their ridiculous and superstitious Ceremonies to be Apostolical: It is observable further, that the Latin Translation by Gentianus, differs very much from the Greek put out by Joh. Meursius (as he 
m Jo. Meursius in Praefat. Lectori Palladio Praepositae.  himself tells us) and both of them very much (even in this present story we now speak of) from an ancient Greek Manuscript copy of Palladius in Bodlyes' Library. So that 'tis evident the book hath been much interpolated; so that he had need of a spirit of Prophecy, who would certainly tell us which is genuine, which spurious.  
For instance, in Meursius his Edition Lugd. Batav. 1616. pag. 152. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the 93 Narration or Chapter is thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then the narration gins thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. And then the next Narration (Narratio 94. pag. 154. hath this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
Now in the Manuscript ancient Copy in Bodlyes' Library those two Chapters are but one, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one, thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And then the Narration gins thus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Difference enough, and therefore negligence or knavery enough in the Transcribers.  
Besides this University friend, I consulted another in the Country, who had, I knew, a well furnished study, and from him I received this following Answer.  
Sir,  
Palladius his Historia Lausiaca I find in the seventh Tom. of Bibliotheca Sanct. Patrum, put forth by Margarinus de la Bigne at Paris, Anno 1589. of which Author Bellarmine himself in his Book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis ad annum 390. confesseth (after he had first praised this History, as not a little profitable to the Reader of it) that this Palladius is reproved by Saint Hierome, in an Epistle of his to Ctesiphon, for an Origenist, and so accounted also by Epiphanius in an Epistle of his to John of Jerusalem, which Epistle is to be seen (as he saith) in the second Tom. of Hieroms Works. This History of Palladius hath the name Lausiaca, from one Lausus, to whom it is dedicated both by Palladius and Heraclides. a Bishop of Cappadocia; both which Epistles dedicated to Lausus, are prefixed to this History. The History hath more Miracles in it than are in the New Testament, and as strange ones as are in any Legend, and it seemeth the Author, (as he saith at the 56. Sect. of this History) could have reported stranger, but that they did excedere miraculi modum; not that they were false though, but because men wanted faith to believe them. In the first Sect one Dorotheus, cum prius signaculo crucis se munivisset, draweth, and drinketh the water of a Well, wherein there were Asps: Abbot Copres, sect. 49. went into the flames of a great fire, and stayed there half an hour, and had no hurt, but as he entered the fire he was in nomine Christi signatus. One Abbot Be, at the entreaty of some Husbandmen of that Country, commanded a Sea horse (Hipp-potamus) who wasted that Country to be packing, and not to spoil the Country any more. And so forthwith this Sea horse, as if he had been driven away by an Angel, anished, omnino evanuit. Sect. 17. An Hyaena brings her whelp unto Abbot Macarius and layeth it down at the Abbot's feet, this whelp was blind, the Abbot spits upon the eyes of this blind whelp, prayeth, and the whelp recovereth its sight; the Hyaena taketh up the whelp, and deparreth: But then the next day the same Hyaena bringeth a great sheepskin unto the Abbot, offereth it unto him (belike as a token of her thankfulness for the cure) the Abbor refuseth the present, rattleth the Hyaena for killing the sheep, adviseth her to kill no more sheep, the Hyaena, capite suo annuit, ut quae sancto Macario assentiretur, Saith my Author: upon the report of St. Paphnutius in another Place, the Devil in the habit of a Presbyter offereth the Sacrament to one, but the good Presbyter discovereth the Devil, and defies him, and his Sacrament. In another place one liveth many years, and had no other sustenance, but the Sacrament once every Sabbath day.  
By this time the Reader is, I hope, sufficiently satisfied, that your Author Palladius is a Legendary writer, the Gentlemen who have made this search for me, desire for the present, to have their names concealed, but however they will be responsible for what they have written, when ever you shall be pleased to call them to an account.  
A third witness is the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Martyr, but this Author is unknown, and the book a forgery, unworthy of Justin Martyr, and as short of his former writings as Lead is of Gold, this you know a great deal better than myself, but others may see as much demonstrated by Rivet. Critie. sacr. lib. 2. cap. 5. Out of Possevinus, Sylburgius and Scaltetus.  
But you have perhaps another argument, hinted towards the conclusion of this section, and it is the apparition of the sign of the Cross unto Constantine, of which you speak in those words; he that thus signed to Constantine victory from Heaven (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this overcome etc.  
But it is much questioned, whether or no that which you call the sign of the Cross, was that which appeared unto Constantine. Bishop Abbot in his answer unto Dr. Bishop his Epistle unto King James pag. 167. saith, that the sign of the Cross, unto which Constantine was so much affectioned (and that which he was so affectionate unto, was that which appeared unto him) was indeed 
i Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. 1 c. 25.  the sign of the name of our Saviour, consisting of the two Greek letters x and p, and in the form of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which are the two first letters of the name of Christ, and did import the same whole name, by the sight whereof in the sky Constantine was advertised, that 
k Ib. c. 22.  by Christ be must conquer and overcome. To which name of Christ, represented to Constantine, his most excellent majesty giveth the same honour that Constantine did, reposing therein the whole trust of his Victory, and safety, both spiritual and corporal, and knowing that no 
l Acts 4.7.  other name is given under heaven, by which we must be saved, but only the name of Jesus Christ. This opinion●s embraced by many; but Dr. John Rainolds of all others, I believe, speaks most fully of it in his conference with Hart, pag. 507, 508. The sign that appeared to Constantine in the Element was a sign of the name of Christ, not his Cross: howsoever the Coiners and 
m Marshal's treatise of the Cross art. 2. Harpesfeildes Cope. dialog 4.  Crosse-maintainers of your Church do falsely paint it out. For as 
n De vit. Constant. lib. 1. cap. 15.  Eusebius writeth, (unto whom Constantine did report the thing, and shown him that ensign, which he had caused to be made in the likeness thereof) it was the form of a 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. which words translated amiss by Interpreters (erat litera p inserta in medio literae x) have occasioned some to make the sign otherwise then Eusebius describeth it.  Spear standing straight upright, with a Crown on the top of it, and as it were a horn, which did cross the midst of the Spear aslope. So that at represented two of the Greek letters, x and p: which being the two first letters of the name of Christ, the name of Christ was signified by that sign to Constantine. Thus be describeth it who saw it.  
Unto this Hart thus replieth, but out of doubt he calleth it the sign or the monument of the Cross also.  
And unto this Dr. Rainolds thus rejoineth. But 
5 cap. 25.  himself showeth, that he calleth it so, because it resembled 
o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  the sign of a Cross. For neither was it like the Cross fully, which had 
p The figure of the letter T. Tertull. advers. Martion. lib. 3. Hieron. lib. 3. Comment. in Ezec. c. 9  another figure: and where he describeth it, he saith in plain terms that it was 
6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  a sign of the name of Christ. Neither were those words that you rehearsed written by it, In this sign overcome, as your 
q Harpsfeild in his Cope-Dialog. 4. c. 3.  Doctor saith: (belike because he read it coined in the Cruseado so, or in the Portigue) bu● 
r 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Euseb. de vit. Constant. l. c. 22.  by this overcome: as if God showing him the name of Christ, should have said unto him that 
s Acts 4.12.  there is no other name given under Heaven whereby we must be saved. In the which meaning it seemeth that Constantine did understand it also: because 
t Euseb. de vit. Const. lib. c. 25.  he used afterward to carry in his Helmet, not the sign of the Cross, but those two letters by which the name of Christ was represented to him.  
But suppose it was the very sign of the Cross, which you imagine, appeared unto Constantine, yet this will make nothing for the perfect decency of the usage of the sign of the Cross in Baptism amongst us: and my reason is, because apparitions in the air, though they be not illusions of Satan, the Prince of the air, but true & real miracles, do not oblige us unto an imitation of the like in God's ordinances: strong and powerful motives they are unto the worship of Christ, but were never designed to be a rule of it, and he that useth it to such a purpose perverts it from its right end.   

Dr. Hammond.  
And then for the Surplice: It is no news, I hope, for several sorts of men to have solemn Garments, for solemn actions which they do not use at other times. The Judges upon the Bench, or the Lords at their coming to Parliament, are a sufficient evidence of this, who wear not those Robes in common occasions, which there they do, as betokening their quality. and the employments they are about. And than what is thus customary in civil matters (viz, to difference persons and employments, yea and days, by distinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogy undeniable, is as fitly and decently from thence derived to solemn sacred actions also, such are the public offices of the Priest: and the commands of our Superiors being added to this decency of the matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is, I am sure, more than undecent for inferiors to be obstinate, and deny obedience to them. In the choice of the garment, there hath been also, as near as may be, a resemblance observed of those garments, which in Scripture are mentioned for the like solemnities, long, shining, i. e. white robes or garments. And if the constant usage of other Churches besides this of ours, Eastern as well as Western, for so many Centuries together, be considered, it will be competently able to establish an Ecclesiastical custom also, which, in things of this nature, external ornaments and formalities, is a more rat onal ground, and rule or measure of decency, than any Mr. J. (or Amesius to boot) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking and casting away those bands which tied no harder a yoke than this upon their shoulders.   

Jeanes.  
The Surplice was used not only as a note of distinction, but also for its mystical signification, to betoken sanctity of life, and until this latter use of them be proved lawful, your four arguments will be but a begging of the Question, as you will soon perceive, when you attempt the reducing of them into form.  
This may suffice for answer unto all your arguments; but I shall also give unto each of them a several answer.  
The first argument is taken from the Analogy betwixt civil and sacred persons and actions: Civil persons wear solemn garments for solemn actions, which they do not use at other times; therefore it is decent for Ministers to wear solemn garments in their solemn sacred actions, which they do not use in common occasions, as whilst they are walking in the streets, or the like.  
To answer this, I need not trouble myself, but only refer the Reader unto what Ames answereth unto the like objection of Bishop morton's in his Reply to his particular Def. &c pag. 4. To which I answer.  
1. That if all this be granted, yet it maketh not for the Surplice; which is not a Civil but an Ecclesiastical, Religious habit; there is great difference betwixt a grave, civil habit, and a mystical garment.  
2. The consequence doth not follow; because in the exercising of the Ministerial duty, nothing is requisite which the Lord himself doth not impose upon his Ministers. A Minister than hath another person, 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 civil, and therefore subject unto man's Institutions: but Ministers in their Functions are only 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 ago, and methinks you should not have propounded it anew without some reinforcement.  
But your second argument will strike the matter dead; The Command of our Superiors added unto the decency of the matter. But this mends the matter nothing at all; for our Superiors, as well as others, are prohibited to make any additionals unto the Worship instituted by the supreme Law giver, who had infinite Wisdom, 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 unlawful, Deut. 12.32. And why then should it be lawful to add unto the Ceremonial Law in the New Testament? Christ was faithful 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 own institution, to make way for such as shall be of men's invention: If we must needs have mystical apparel, what can be more fitting than that which God himself ordained?  
The Word and Sacraments do sufficiently mind 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 hid the light of the Gospel under a bushel, and it is a vailing and shadowing of its brightness.  
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 clothed with white robes, Revel. 7.9. and the Lamb's Wife shall be arrayed with fine linen, 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, superior 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 precedent 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 Polity, pag. 245. That the true and Primitive antiquity of the Surplice, is a matter very doubtful, notwithstanding, saith he, I am not bend to stand stiffly upon these probabilities, that in Hieromes and Chrysostom's times any such attire, as a white garment, was made several unto this purpose, to wit, for Ministers to execute their Ministry 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 aver, that Ecclesiastical custom in things of this nature, is a more rational ground and rule of decency than any Mr. J. or Amesius to boot, will readily be able to produce, for the rejecting of them, etc. But until Amesius his argument against things of this nature, humane mystical ceremonies, be answered, this comparison with impartial Readers will pass for nothing but vapouring.  
In the end of the Section, you give a hint of the tolerablenesse of the Ceremonies, they were bands which tied no harder yoke than this, upon your shoulders.  
But first, God hath broken the yoke of his own Ceremonies, and our Prelates cannot show 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 Christ's Members and Ministers. Paul, though he thought all indifferent things to be lawful, 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 Cross 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 scandalise.  
2. If we may judge of the late Bishop's zeal by their punishments, they shown 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 less 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 yielded) the poor men were judged obstinate and contumacious, and then the Secular power was called upon for their perpetual imprisonment, they must not breathe in English air, unless 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 Prelate's 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 believe (though not in the garments themselves) there is place for that decency, the omission of which necessarily infers indecency, and for such order the breaking of which must soon end in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (which Mr. J. saith St. Paul opposes to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) viz. down right confusion.   

Jeanes.  
Here we have a great deal of confidence in your conclusion, but upon a diligent and most impartial search, I cannot find any premises of a proportionable strength to bear it up; indeed you are like to meet with some partial Readers, who will think your proofs irrefragable, because you have poured our so many quotations out of the Fathers, whereas all the while there is nothing in all this your discourse that looks like an Argument: If you think my censure injurious, you may right yourself, by reducing your Arguments unto form, and then, if they be found convincing, the shame will be mine, and until this be done, I shall satisfy myself with that which Ames speaks concerning the pretence of decency, In his reply to Mortons' particular def. etc. pag. 3. As for the rule of decency, which is here made the ground of all this affirmation; it were to be wished that the Defendant would have brought it into a Syllogism, that we might have seen the force of it; for now I cannot devise what Logic will conclude different Ministerial Garments, from decency; ●eeing decency was, and is without them, in a multitude of Christian Churches and Ministers; but as some blundering Logicians, make their rule de omni & de nullo, serve to prove every thing: so this Defendant would make us believe that his rule of decency will maintain any thing that it pleaseth our spiritual Lords to impose upon us.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 31, 32, 33.  
Having said thus much ex abundanti above what was incumbent on me, I shall flatter myself, that I may not spare any larger pains, in survey of Amesius' arguments, which Mr. J. is resolved to think considerable, and to speak very magnificently of ●hem, as proving that the text 1 Cor. 14.40 rightly understood, doth not only not authorise any humane institution of ceremonies, but on the contrary plainly condemns them, and this, saith he, was so well managed by him, that he hath quite beaten out of the field Bishop Morton and his second, Dr. J. Burges,  
32. Here is triumph indeed. And I suppose the Reader already discerns, what are the grounds of it, viz. that Amesius acknowledges nothing decent, but that, the omission of which necessarily infers indecency, i.e. as hath been showed, nothing but natural decency, the omission of which is a vice contrary to that, by consequence, that there is no such thing, as an indifferent gesture or garment, which either civil or ecclesiastical custom, or obedience to our lawful Superiors may render decent; that whatsoever some external law of nature commands not the doing of that, if it be but wearing such a garment, which the Canons of any Church prescribe, nay, by parity of reason a Cloak or a but on'd Doublet, is absolutely unlawful by force of 1 Cor. 14.40.  
33. This being the bottom of those arguments of Amesius, I may safely tell Mr. J. that they could not otherwise beat either Bishop Morton or Dr. J. Burges out of the field, then that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to; He that thinks the●e is nothing in different, nothing lawful, the omission of which is not sin, doth certainly use other Dictionaries than we do, discerns no difference betwixt lawful and necessary and, as the Assertors of Fa●all production of all things, will not allow a cause to be sufficient to produce any effect, which it doth not produce, and so produce, that it cannot but produce it, which is to tell me that I sit, and walk at the very time, when I stand still, it being certain that I am equally able to do both those, when yet I really do the third only, so he will not allow any thing morally possible, which is not morally necessary which is certainly the giving new laws to words (making the word lawful or possible which was wont to be interpreted that which may or may not be done, to signify only that which must be done, and may not be omitted) and not new reasons to confirm old paradoxes.   

Jeanes.  
In these three Sections I shall stay upon nothing but your charge of m● and Amesius with this senseless and irrational position, that nothing is indifferent; who almost that hath heard of your great parts, learning and ingenuity (and who is there such a stranger in our Jsrael unto whose ears the same thereof hath not arrived) but will upon this conclude us both guilty? whereas we are both free. & innocent, and most untruly aspersed by you, for which I expect & challenge satisfaction. Sir, herein I desi●e no favour at your hands, but shall entreat you to put any of our words upon the ra●ke, and if by all your Logic y●u can extort any such inference from them, I shall confess myself worthy of all that disgrace which your pen can pour upon me To c●ea● myself from this your impuration I have joined herewith a Treatise concerning the indifferent actions of man; And as for Ames, his own writings will sufficiently acquit him in his Modul. Theolog. lib 2. cop. 3. thes. 13 he expressly affirmeth that many acts in the general a●e in their own nature indifferent, and in his Cases of Conscience he hath a whole chapter de Adiaphor is and there too his resolution is, that var●e dontur ●ctiones quae in sua communi ac nuda natura antequam circamstant●s v●stiantur, nullam includum bonitatem aut ma●itiam. Taies sunt c●medere, bibere, iter facere, ambulare etc. lib. 3. cap. 18 There be divers actions which in their common and bare nature, before they be as it were clothed with circumstances, do include in themselves no goodness or badness; as to eat, to drink, to take a journey, to walk etc. Dr. J. Burges impureth unto Bradshaw his opinion, which you father upon Ames, and Ames his defence of Mr. B●adshaw will serve for his own apology. Dr. Burges says th●t Mr. Bradsh●w h●d good reason to reverse his opinion ●f things indifferent, for against all learning and sense, he resolves that there is nothing indifferent, and unto this Aims thus answereth T●●pli●at. cap. 2 S. 8, 9 If this were so as 'tis related, reason would persw the to some recantation, but 'tis only the Bejoinder his telling again without any show or proof. The Bejoynder raiseth up a report, without showing from wh●● h● received it, which until it be some other way confirmed, then by an adversaries bore telling and that in a humour of disgracing his person, it most be accounted a mere tale. I for my part, can find no such word: in Mr. Bradshaw his treatise, neither any thing from whence such a raw sentence may be reasonably collected. He concludeth indeed cap. 3. that there is no absolute indifferent thing j e. every way, a● well in order of nature, as of morality. He affirmed also cap. 7 there is nothing actually indifferent, which is not potentially good or evil, and cap. 8 there is no action of man's will so indifferent, but the d●ing thereof by some circumstances, may be evil. There is no action that a man can do, by the power of his will, that is merely and absolutely indifferent. 
Humanum act●in ind●v●duo consideratum ex ●elther at â rat●one pro cedentem vel bonum esse vel malum necesse est.  These passages come the nearest to that which is here fathered upon the treatise: in all which this crudity appeareth not: there is nothing indifferent. Nay the ha●shest of these assertions, may be found not only in little Pamphlets made by Ca●pent●s Boys, against learning and sense, but in great volumes, written by those that go for very learned, and sensible in such matters as this is. Thomas Aquinas, in the great book called his Sum, prima second. q. ●8 r. 9 hath this conclusion: it must needs be that every individual act of man (proceeding from del●herate reason) is either good or bad. And all (or almost all) those which have written upon that place, do confi●●e and defend th● same, who yet were men, that in questions of such a nature, did not usually write against all learning and sense.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 34.  
This argument of Amesins against things indifferent, that learned Bishop was well ac●●●●ted with, by his familiar conferences with Mr. Gla●thorn, a vehement disputer against Ceremonies, and whom the Bishop thought fit to refute by trifling instances, of unb●ttoning and buttoning his Cassock, than by more serious attempts of conviction. i e. in plain rearms to despise and smile at, than to dread; and if Mr. J. have really read Mr. Hooker, whom he somewhere entitles our Patron of Ceremonies, he may in him remember a discourse of Laws, which will supersede all necessity or benefit of my farther enlarging on it.   

Jeanes.  
Here we have a gross mistake, and a bitter jeer.  
1. A gross mistake, to say no worse, for Ames hath no where any Argument against things indifferent; it is a Conclusion which he never dream of, and therefore you most injuriously fasten it upon him, and hereof, I hope, you will repent, and give some public restimonial thereof.  
Next we have a bitter jeer at Non conformists, as if their opinion concerning humane, religious Ceremonies, were so  and ridiculous, that Bishop Morton despised it, and smiled at it, and could refute it easily, by trifling instances by unbuttoning and buttoning his Cassock: There may be truth in this your relation concerning Mr. Hind and Glapthorne, but your false accusation of Ames will render your bare word questionable, if it be not backed with farther proofs; but suppose your relation true, yet all that you can gather hence is, that they were weak Respondents, and knew not the state of the Question; and unto that you seem as great a stranger as they, for you dare not say that Bishop Mortons' button and unbuttoning his Cassock, was a religious Ceremony, and if it were not, was it not a proper medium to prove the lawfulness of humane religious Ceremonies?  
The Non conformists laid down four qualifications in the Ceremonies which they oppose: 1. Humane Institution. 2. Ordained signification. 3. Mystical signification. 4. Appropriation unto God's solemn Worship and Service.  
1. Humane Institution, they are humane inventions, now Kneeling, Bowing, Prostrating, lifting up of the eyes and of the hands, shouting and dancing for joy, they absolutely deny to be humane inventions, as you may see in Ames his dispute about Ceremonies, pag. 495.  
2. A second thing is ordained signification, though they have an aptness to signify, yet they do not actually signify, without special institution of man● those signs then that signify without institution by nature or by civil custom a●● shut out of this controversy.  
1. By nature, natural Ceremonies as they are called, such as to look up to Heaven, to lift up our heads, to bow our knees in prayer; for these Nature ●t self, saith Ames, doth teach all nations to observe without any institution, though not without some government of counsel, nor without such varletry, as Nature itself is subject unto. Manuduct unto disp about humane Ceremon. pag. 27.  
2. By civil custom, and of this nature was the woman's vail, 1 Cor. 11. By received use and ancient custom, it shown the subjection of a woman unto the husband, and so was an indicant sign thereof without any new institution of man.  
3. They are of mystical signification, they signify either some grace or duty, they teach some spiritual and religious thing by their instituted signification, and therefore are termed by some, doctrinal Ceremonies.  
4. They are appropriated unto the acts of Religion in God's service, and so are religious in state, and have, as Parker phraseth it, a kind of immobility in God's worship, and hereupon they are termed religious Ceremonies, and by this all circumstances, or if you will call them circumstantial Ceremonies, all Ceremonies of mere order and decency are excluded out of the controversy, because they are common to things civil as well as sacred, and used as well out of God's worship, as in it.  
Whereas Doctor Morton objecteth, that a Pulpit-cloath, Communion cup, the Church and place of God's service itself, may be appropriated and assigned only unto God's Worship: Ames for answer distinguisheth betwixt appropriation of this or that individual, and of the kind; Individuals (saith he) may be extrinsecally and accidentally appropriated, the kind remaining intrinsically common and indifferent, and the individuals that are thus extrinsecally appropriated, are of the same use out of God's service that they are in it; this, saith Ames, is occasion of admiration unto Dr. Burges the Rejoinder, but he might have considered, that the immediate end of a Cloth, is to cover; of a Cup, to drink out of; of Meeting places to meet in; and then where is the strangeness of this assertion? Is there nor the same immediate use of a man's eyes, in reading one book, as another, of a man's ears, in hearing one voice, as another, however the subject seen, or heard, may differ in nature or kind?  
This is a true state of the Question, made, not by me, but by Parker, Ames, Didoclave, and other learned Non-conformists long ago: And now I hope you are sensible that Bishop Morton his button and unbuttoning his Cassock, came not within many leagues of it; there is no doubt, but that either you have, or may easily procure a Cassock of the like stuff and fashion, as that of the Bishops; and why should not this fear be as feasible ●nto you as unto him? P●ay, Sir, try the utmost of your skill, and let all the Bishops in the Land be your assistants; nay, take in what help you can from Mr. Hooker his discourse of Laws that you refer me unto, and if from the buttoning and unbuttoning of your Cassock, you can with all your united forces, prove the lawfulness of humane religious Ceremonies, symbolical signs; that is, those which teach some things spiritual by their mystical instituted signification, and are appropriated unto God's worship, I will then confess that there is as miraculous a virtue in your Cassock, as you ascribe unto the sign of the Cross in the Primitive times, and shall be ready publicly to terract whatsoever I have written, or spoken against these Ceremonies; but until such proof be made, it will be no act of imprudence in you to forbear for the future, such unsavoury girds; for however they bewray a passionate, high, and scornful contempt of your poor Antagonists, yet upon examination they will be found to be sapless 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 condemn 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 God's worship. He that can maintain this consequence not only 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 shameful overthrows than contempt of Adversaries: what opened the King of Sweden so speedy a way unto his Victories, as the Emperor's slighting of him? And I am confident that your despising of Ames, will add 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 less 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 only prefix this Preface; Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself, as he that putteth it off, 1 King. 20.11.  
Concerning an Argument against our Ceremonies, 1 Cor. 14. which is acknowledged to be the only place in all the New Testament, that can be alleged for their imposing. In Ames his Repl. to Mortons' general Def. etc. pag. 9, 10, 11, 12.  
This Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.26.40. being rightly understood, doth not only not justify such Ceremonies as ours, but plainly condemneth them. For the manifesting of which assertion, because it may seem strange to those ears 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 Church's liberty in things pertaining unto God's 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 showeth that Christ is the only 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 only Canons, Orders, Directions, ordering in seemly manner those things which Christ hath appointed; and that if she addeth any thing of her own, she doth decline. The reason is because unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a Ministry to observe and do 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 wisdom required; and in all Lawmakers, and perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such Institutions. For the former reason teacheth (as Aristotle showeth Rhet: 1.3) that all, which possibly may, should be appointed in the law, by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, etc. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our Lawgiver 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, unlawful will worship. For whatsoever is used, or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civil humane considerations, and therefore civility: or an act and meanus of worship, and therefore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts and means, and therefore lawful, if lawfully and fitly applied: or else, at the least, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: A ●ift cannot be given. By all this it may appear, that the authority of the Church is not to appoint what she will, no not of things in their own nature indifferent, and say they be in order, or for order: But only to ●order those things which God hath appointed.  
Thus fare the proposition, or first part of my Syllogism: the assumption followeth.  
But to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to God's 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 itself, which both in Greek and Latin is taken from the ranking of Soldiers in certain bounds and limits of time and place. Dicebant enim militibus tribuni, hactenus tibi licet, hic consists, 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. the civet. lib. 15. cap. 13. Order is the disposition which fit places to things equal and unequal, id est, when things are handsomely ranked, some to go before, and some to follow, as P. Martyr expoundeth it, loc. come. cl. 4. cap. 5.  
3. The same also is confirmed by our Divines, who usually giving instances of order, do insist in time, place, and suchlike circumstances, making a difference betwixt mystical 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 Harmony 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, etc. v. 30, 31. So Basil expoundeth it, showing 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 ●he word order import any more than hath been said.  
As for Comeliness, 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 attain their end Other where it may contain that natural, or civil hand someness, 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 cloth and Cup for the Communion, a fair and firm vessel for Baptism; but not the appointing of n●w mystical ceremony, f●r than such ceremonies were here commanded to all Churches, which the Defend I think will not say: and then the Apostolic Assemblies should have worshipped God uncomelily.  
Thus we have both proposition and assumption of our argument, against the ceremonies, confirmed out of this place, which the Defendant choose as the only p●ace that could be brought for them. Now I hope we may add the conclusion.  
Therefore to appoint and use the ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i.e. it is unlawful.  
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 alleged for their imposing. Aims 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 pla●e of Scripture, and finding nothing by any Logic could be drawn from it for our Ceremonies, thought good to try if there may no●, from the same pla●e be form a better argument against them. This the Rej. calleth beating up of a new Hare, and losing the way, as if all the Def. his Retortions, and all the rejoinder his paper sh●● which he maketh after the Repl. when he imagineth him to fly, ●● run away, were new Hares and exorbi●ations. I know not else wha● pr●●ledge he hath, to use a weight, and a weight, one for the Defend, with himself, and another for the Replyer.  
2. The argument i● thus put together by the Rej pag. 77 All that is left unto the Church's liberty, in things pertaining to God's worship, is to order them in comely ●anner: But to appoint and use the Ceremonies, as we do, is not to order in comely manner any things pertaining to God's worship's Therefore, to appoint and use the Ceremonies, as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawful. The rejoinder 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 denial.  
1. He saith, that the order, and ordering is taken sometimes largely, for all discipline or policy; sometimes 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 fare 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 ●aid together, it necessarily followeth, that all which is left to the Church's 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 accuse●h the Repl, for saying order to be the right placing and disposing of things, in tituted for time, place, &c, not showing 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 etc. is meant all circumstances of like nature with time and place, as Number, Measure, vicissitude etc. How many Psalms shall be sung, or Chapters read, what and how much Scripture shall be at this or that Assembly expounded, how one part of worship shall succeed another etc. without a blind.  
4. In the next place, the rejoined findeth a wrong meaning in the Repl. his use of the phrase (in comely manne●) because afterward, in the end of he Assumption, he saith that, Comeliness is the Seemliness of order. For (saith the Rej.) beside that Comeliness of order, there is other Comeliness. Now this the Replier p●ofesseth immediately after the words quoted; otherwhere Comeliness may contain all natural and civil handsomeness etc. Neither will I contend about this, but it implieth so much in this very place; so that the rejoined hath not given any reason, why the Proposition or first part of the argument should not be admitted. Yet after that he hath fathered it upon Mr. Jac●b, and made the Repl. his disciple, he cometh to examine the proofs of i●, though he himself (as is now showed) hath given sufficient assent unto all contained therein.  
5. The First proof 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 rejoined, answereth.  
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 means, 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 Edification. A holy Sacrament decently, and orderly administered, for Edification, is not four distinct things, but one.  
His Second is, that these words are the conclusion of the whole Tract: beginning at the Eleventh Chapt. wherein are handled some things only concerning decency, some more properly pertaining to Edification, and some which belong more peculiarly to Order, Ergo more is commanded in th●se words, than the comely placing of one thing after another. Let this be granted, yet I followeth not that more is left unto the Church's liberty, than order and dec●nc● unto Edification; for all things that are commanded, are not left unto ●he Church's liberty.  
But that speaking in unknown tongues, which the rejoined. doth refer to Edification, is distinct from order and decency is by good Divines accounted to offend against the order, and decency, spoken of chap. 11. and 40. So Dr. Whitaker, de Script. q. 2. c. 18. disputeth against the use of an unknown tongue in God's service, out of the very pl●ce: pugnat hoc vero cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quam maxim, 1 Cor. 14.40. i e. this mightily overthrows that good order which h● so much stands for. His 3. is, the Defend. doth no way seem to g●ant the proposition; because the Repl. undertaketh by argument to rescue this place out of the Def. his hands, But this nothing at all argueth, that the Def. and the Repl. do not agree about the proposition, though t●ey diffent about the place, as it is handled in the assumption. The Papists grant us this Proposition: No Phrase is used by Christ in these words, This is my body, but a Sacramental one: Yet because they deny the assumption; transubstantiating words are not a Sacramental phrase, we undertake by argument to rescue this place out of their hands. So the Def requiring no more, than order and decency unto Edification, to be left unto the Church's liberty, for the establishing of our Ceremonies, doth seem at least to grant, that all which is left to the Church's liberty is order and decency unto Edification, though he deny these to contain no more then mere circumstances, which is the assumption: Of Edification there is not mention made in the proposition, because tha●, as an end, is out of question, and always included.  
6. Peter Martyr is cited out of D. Whitaker De Pontif. pag. 841. 844. As agreeing with that which the Repl. would have, Here the Rej. enlargeth himself much for the sake (as he saith) of those that are unlatined.  
He telleth us P. M. doth distinguish, though not divide, comeliness from order, which we do also, for take the Repl. his words in the most rigorous sense you can, yet comeliness of order, doth distinguish comeliness from order, no less than comeliness of a man doth distinguish it from a man.  
2. He addeth, that P. Mart. doth there instance in the Ceremony of thrice dipping, and in the observation or institution of Feasts. But let the Reader know, that those words, Ceremony, Observation, Institution of Feasts, which the Rej. hath set down in a differing letter, to be noted as P. M. his words, are not to be found in the place of P. M. but are added by the Rej. for advantage. P. M expoundeth the meaning he had in all his instances, by what place, what time, what manner. If therefore the Repl. did not look upon that place, but took it on trust, from the trusty hand of D. Whitaker (as the ●ej objected to him) yet it proveth good and fitting. So that ●he Re● forgetteth himself much, when upon this uncertain, and momentlesse conjecture, he compareth the Repl. to a hungry creature (or dog) that runneth away with a bare bone. D. Morton once (at the least) alleged some testimonies on trust; and therefore, being challenged for them, he confessed, that he● had ●hem from Mr. Stock Yet the Popish adversary (author of the sober reckoning) did not compare him to dog, but only said, that he sent to stock and stones for satisfaction about them. Which I do not allege to the disparagement of either D. M. o● M. St. but only to show by comparison how the ●ej. doth sometime over flow in his terms.  
3. For D Whitaker, he telleth ●s, that he only saith, that Ecclesiastica. Laws belong only to order, or ordering, but not as it is distinct from comeliness. As if any of us did so. The Repl his words; ordering in comely manner, do not (I hope) refer all to order, considered apart from all comeliness.  
This is the full sum of all that the Rejoind, had to except against the first allegation. And yet here upon this nothing, it pleaseth him to accuse, not only the Repl. but these men, of haughty and magistral fashions, gulling, and deceiving, great and shameful sin, and the poor Repl. at the least, for a man destitute of common honesty. It seemeth he was very angry at something. Let the understanding Reader guests, at what? 6. For more manifestation of the Repl. his vacuity of common honesty, the Rej. referreth us to the second testimony out of Junius against Bell. Cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86, 87. and cap. 17. n. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.  
Omitting therefore unnecessary repetition, let us hear the reasons of extraordinary dishonesty.  
1. Junius cap 16 n. 86, 87. saith only first, that those humane Laws are only necessary in the Church, which tend to this, that all things may be done decently, and in order, 1 Cor. 14.40.  
2. That these are improperly called Laws in the Church, being more properly Constitutions., or Canons.  
Now out of the first saying, the Repl. concluded, that Junius did judge the Apostle left no more to the Church's liberty, than to order God's Ordinances in decent manner: And out of the second he inferred the same conclusion; because any constitution, above ordering in decent manner that which before was enjoined, is properly a Law. What extraordinary dishonesty is here?  
2. Junius c. 17. n. 9 saith only, that to make new Laws in divine things, is to decline, i. e. in points of Faith, or necessary rules of Sanctimony. But junius maketh no mention at all, either of Faith or Sanctimony, or Necessity, nor Bell. himself in that place. Neither is the question there handled of points of Faith, or things absolutely necessary to Sanctimony. All double, triple Ceremonies reductively Sacramental, and Worship, are by the Rej. his own dictates double sacred; and that is it which junius meaneth by divine.  
3. Bell. saith that the addition forbidden Deut. 4. is of Laws contrary to the Law of God: Whereunto Junius, n. 10. answereth, that any Laws at all, added to God's Laws, are contrary to the Law of God, speaking of proper Laws, without any backing of God's Law, binding the conscience, as he showeth, cap. 16. n. 86.8.  
Here 1. the Rejoind. left out those words of junius, neither contrary nor beside the word; which if he had transtated, than the Readers memory might have recalled, how this place cited before for defence of that phrase, was but shifted by the Rejoind. pag 42.  
2. It is to be marked that the Def. and Rej. their answer unto Deut 4. is the same with Bell. pag. 134.  
3. That exposition of Laws without backing, is of the Rej. his own forging. No such thing is found in the places quoted, nor yet did Bell. profess to defend any such thing. Of binding the conscience, enough hath been said in the head of difference betwixt our Ceremonies and Popish.  
4. junius n. 12. answering to Bellarmine his saying, that God (in the N.T.) gave only the common Laws of Faith and Sacram. leaving the specials to the Church, etc. affirmeth God's 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 etc. for a blind, or blinding, which the rejoined. formerly told of, for in that etc. is cortained, pro locor●m, & temporum diversitate: quia non possunt diver sissimi populi convenire in iisd●m legibus & ritibus. i e. for this cause, special laws of ritual things, are left to the Church's liberty, because of variety, which falleth out now by occasion of times and places, which is the very thing that the rejoined. pawned his credit, Bell. never said, pag. 15, 16. Note also, Secondly, that Junius doth not in this place mention Canons, as the rejoined, 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 alleged for, and to the contrary we have from the rejoined. an hill di●it.  
5. Junius n. 13. saith only that Christ is the only Law giver, that is, to give laws, 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 confute; for Bellarmine, in that very place saith: Christ is the chief law giver, who by his own authority can judge and make laws.  
Now out of all these allegations, the rejoined. 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 mere 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 turn aside: for the rejoined. his interpretation of those words, that they mean points of faith, and necessary rules of Sanctimony, is confuted by conference of Bellarmine's words there opposed, who in that place instanceth in Ceremonial and Judicial laws, 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 laws 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 rejoined. what Patent hath she to make particular ordinances for time and place? unless they be no new things. I ans.  
1. Time and place considered as mere occasional circumstances, are no more new things in God's service, then concreated time and place, were new things in creation, distinct from the created world. And Calvin ins●it. l. 4. cap. 10. Sect. 22. severely censureth those, that call such times of determinations new laws: Quis nisi calumniator, sic novam fer●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, than neither is procuring that disorder, and undecency, for time, place, etc. be avoided, any new thing.  
As for a Patent to appoint double, triple, sacred ceremonies, it is a vain thing for them to plead it, that cannot show 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 ministerial performance of things appointed, he denieth appointing of new things. 2 He argeeth thus, if the Church have a ministry to appoint and do such things as Christ hath commanded, then must she needs have a commission legative, to appoint and use rites, serving to order and decency. Add to this only, and then it is not only that, but all that which we require. 3. He c●yeth out of miserable perversion, either by gross negligence, or mistaking. And why so I pray? because forsooth all that Junius saith is good to prove, that no Ecclesiastical person hath any power by his calling over temporal 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 commi●●ion. They have not any power over temporal Princes (though they be members of the Church) but over the Church they have.  
2. The rejoined▪ maketh Junius only to deny that, which Bellarmine never affirmed, viz. absolute independent power of Ecclesiastical persons, as supreme Lords. Nay Bellarmine answereth to Calvin in ●he very same manner that the rejoined. do●h: The Pope is not the chei● law giver but the Vicar of Christ, and by Christ's authority maketh laws.  
3. He adds, that Junius d●●p. de trad. distinguisheth betwixt decency, and the seemliness of order alone.  
As if this were the main question, or any part of the Proposition, or denied by the Repl▪ at all. The rejoined, having little to say that was to purpose, catcheth hold of one word in the end of the Assumption used by the Repl. seemliness 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 God's 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 fellness of a perfect law, which leaveth no more unto ministerial judges, than needs must. For answer, the rejoined. 1. Observeth that some cases are of necessity variable, and so left. So the occasions of different ri●es, and Ceremonies are so various, that if ou● Lord had fixed any one certain fashion, he should have made rather snares than laws for his Church. As if he had appointed sitting at the table in a communion: or kneeling in prayer. This is strange stufle. 1. So much is granted, as is desired, viz. that God ha●h left nothing (about his worship) 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 baptised with the sign of the Cross as well, as baptising of them with water? ● 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 than laws for his Church. If it had pleased God to command, or forbidden the sign of the Cross in particular, 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 rejoined, 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 be wanting, or something to si● on, or ability to sit; and so of Kneeling: this is as poor a snare to catch any man of understanding in, as one shall lightly see made. For 1. many affirmative Commandments of God there are, which in extraordinary cases cannot be 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 not, than our argument may proceed.  
Kneeling in public 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 jerusalem, than any Christian that hath knees, is to kneel.  
After this observation, of which the Rej▪ saith it may be as we will, he answereth, that our Lord hath left nothing absolute to the will of his Officers; but hath left even ambulatory Rites, under general rules, which will tie them as perfectly, as if every one had been named and with less 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 inferior Officers, as that it should be without the general rules of Justice, common good, etc. nay not without the rules of order and decency.  
2. Concerning the comparison of perfection, betwixt general and particular rules, though enough hath been said before, upon like occasion, yet this I will add.  
If he meaneth, that a general rule, if it be perfectly understood and applied, doth as perfectly tie 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 he mean, that a general rule is as fit and full for the direction of us imperfect men, as particulars are, than I think no man conscious of humane frailty, will believe him.  
Neither do I believe, that he himself is so fully persuaded in crossing the baptised, by any rule which he hath out of God's word for that, as he is for baptising by the rule of that.  
The ●epl. having (as he thought) sufficiently grounded the general, that a perfect Law leaveth nothing more than 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 Church's 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 plain 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 easy? 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 easy 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 only cautions to the Church's liberty, which is the very same that the Repl. meaneth. The plain 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 be easily appointed, did not say what Christ could do, but what might be easily for us appointed, or with our ease, or with the ease which we do conceive of in Law giving, or of an ordinary Lawgiver, having such authority as Christ had. And who doth not see, that it is not so easy, to appoint every particular place, and time, wherein God shall be worshipped, throughout all the world, as with that worship he shall be served? For that particular description, a thousand books, so great as our own Bible, would not have sufficed.  
The world (as john saith) would not be capable of the volumes that must have been written. The Rej. himself, pag. 89. kelleth us of cumber, and much ado, that would have been, in naming every particular, and is not this as much as less easy? yet it pleased him to seek matter of altercation about this phrase, and that (which agreeth not) in mediately after he had, without reason, accused the Repl. of picking quarrels, pag. 88  
10. A second reason of the Repl. his proposition, was, that whatsoever in worship is above order and decency, is worship: Because whatsoever is acted by him that worshippeth, in that act. beside ordinary civility, must either ●ee an act or means of worship, or an orderly decent disposing of those acts, or else at the least idle, and so unlawful. The Rej. answereth 1. that a significant Ceremony for Edification is lawful; yet cometh not under any of those heads. But he himself confesseth a significant Ceremony instituted of God, to be essential worship, and instituted of man to be worship, though not in itself: of which distinction enough hath been said in the head of Worship: Yet this by the way: A significant ceremony for edification is the same in itself, by whomsoever it be instituted, because institution is  to the thing instituted, and altars it not in itself, internally. If therefore it be essential lawful worship, in itself, when it is instituted by God, it is also essential (though not lawful) worship, in itself, when it is instituted by man. Beside that Ceremony whose proper sole end is edification toward God, is properly done to the honour of God, and so properly divine worship.  
2. His answer is, that comeliness grounded on civil humane considerations, is not mere civility, in sacred actions and use, but sacred by application. Which is very true, if civil application be meant by mere civil; but than it is nothing to the purpose. For sacred by application is seemly clothing, put on for to go to Church in, and yet is in itself mere civil. The Question is not of application, but of internal nature. Sacred things applid to civil business, do not therefore become civil; for who will say, that prayer, at the beginning of a Parliament, is a civil act, though it were used in the upper and lower house, and applied to that civil meeting, as it ought to be? And why then shall the application of civil decency unto sacred business, make it alter the nature or name of it?  
3. His answer is that all means of worship are not worship. But he knew well enough, that this was meant of proper means of worship.  
His fourth is, that ordering and manner of disposing is ill divided from comeliness. Neither did the Repl. intent so to divide, but rather to conjoin them, understanding by that manner of disposing, comeliness. But if the Rej. had not catched up some show of confounding comeliness with order, which was not intended by the Repl. he had been in this argument wholly at a loss.  
His fift and last answer is, that by Basils' leave somethings in themselves, may, and sometimes must be tolerated. But he should have remembered, that the question here is not of tolerating, but of appointing and using.  
Now if it be lawful, to appoint and use empty and unprofitable Ceremonies in God's worship, let those worshippers judge, that tremble at the majesty of God▪ and are afraid in any manner to appear empty, and unprofitably before hi● Nay (to pass by our Divines) let the Papists themselves judge. Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 17. ad 4. Confesses those Ceremonies to be forbidden, which are unprofitable altogether, and vain precepts, unprofitable and frivolous Ceremonies, only by humane spirit invented. And the Effect. Sacrament. l. 2. c. 32. empty and good for nothing, more than needs, and not a jot tending to any Godliness, and who not?  
11. Thus fare concerning the proposition of our argument: the assumption followeth, which is this: To appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not to order in comely manner any thing pertaining to God's worship. The reason is, because order requireth not the institution or usage of any new thing, but only the right placing and disposing of things formerly instituted.  
The rejoined, answers 1. That order requireth new time, place and measure: which is a Sophistry in the proposition before abused, and confuted.  
2 His second is, that ordering in comely manner, or comeliness, requireth the institution of such formalities, as shall be suitable to the dignity, and variety of divine actions. Where the term formalities is not so formal, that a man may spy in it the difference it hath from other things: the rejoinder in his Manuduc. pag. 36. appropriateth it to Bishop's Rochets, etc. even as they are distinct from Surplices: the Bishops went before the hearse in their formalities, the Clerks in their Surplices. So that it seemeth to mean some Ceremonies of State, and dignity: of which kind neither Cross, not surplice is any. Howsoever the ordering of one thing, doth not require another new thing, but only disposing of that one. For if it did, than that new thing (because that also must be ordered) would require another new thing, and that also for order sake another, so that no one thing could be ordered without an infinite heap of new things.  
As for the dignity of divine actions, that is best suited with man's reverend and humble simplicity, not with outward shows of dignity, invented by man. The woman's ordinary vail was mo●e suitable to the dignity of God's worship, then if she had adorned herself with Gold, and precious Stones. Paul's plain Cloak was more suitable, than the chiefest Cope in all Rome. If order requireth outward shows of dignity, than Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches a mirable example of religious order; for the Council of Tient Sess. 22. professeth their Mass Ceremonies to be invented, that the majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.  
12. To show further that order requireth not such Ceremonies as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no such thing. Now the rejoined, granteth, that originally the word doth not contain within the compass of it, such kind of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true; but helpeth not, Except the Def. or rejoined. whose principal argument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place the word order is extended beyond his original signification. He will not therefore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order saith he, in this place signify no more than placing. But he maketh his retreat to the word Comeliness; ask if comeliness be nothing? I answer yes, it is something; but the Repl. did not insist on that word, because he took the force of the Def. his argument from this place, principally to lie upon order.  
But seeing the rejoinder hath given up Order, I will add a word or two concerning Comeliness.  
I take this for granted, that seeing the rejoinder confesseth order here to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to confusion, pag. 78. he will also consent with us, that decency, in the same place and sentence, is to be taken in strict signification, as opposed only to the vice of undecency. Now hence it followeth that decency requireth nothing, but that which is hecessary to the avoiding of undecency.  
I ask therefore if undecency in God's worship cannot be avoided, without double, triple, sacred, significant Ceremonies, of man's inventing? If nor, than the Apostles did much forget themselves, in their public worshipping of God, before men had invented such Ceremonies; for that is no answer which the rejoined. after giveth; all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of comeliness. All Churches are bound to avoid undecency and to do that which decency requireth, or bindeth them unto. If yea, then Decency doth not require such kind of Ceremonies.  
Neither doth it indeed, any more than order. So Mr. Perkins, lat. to. 2. p. 888. Decency is when the service of God is performed with convenient and fit circumstances of time, place, person, and gesture: and here of the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 14.40. The plain simple truth, without Ceremonial affectation, is, that decency is (in this place) nothing but good civil fashion, agreeable not only to worship, but also to any grave assembly. Decency (saith Pareus upon the place) is opposed to vanity, sports, riot: it stands not in hoods, Caps, or vizards of fond Ceremonies. etc.  
I dare appeal to D. B. his conscience, if Baptism be not as decently administered without the Cross, as with it,? and public prayers made as decently without a Surplice, as with it? Let conscience here speak, and the Rejoind: harkening unto it, will (without all doubt) confess, that decency in this place doth no more require either Cross or Surplice, than order, and that both of them together doth no more require those Ceremonies, than a hundred other, which in England (though not at Rome) are denied unto them.  
To this purpose Mr. Attersall, in his second book of the Sacrament, chap. 5. saith well: if they refer all this trash and trumpery (of hamane Ceremontes' in Baptism) to order and comeliness, as Hosius doth, do they not thereby blasphemously accuse the Baptism of John, and of the Apostles of uncomeliness and disorder? whereas the comeliness and dignity of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God, by the institution of Christ, by the simplicity of the Gospel, and by the practice of the Apostles: Nothing is more comely, decent, and orderly, then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth: nothing is more uncomely and unseemly then that which man inventeth in the service of God, and in the celebration of the Sacraments; thereby inverting and perverting the holy Ordinances of God.  
12. The received definitions of order, are brought in to the same purpose, by the Replier. And the rejoinder yieldeth so much as they import, viz. that order in strict signification doth not imply such Ceremonies as ours.  
He must therefore either prove, that in this place, 1 Cor. 14.40. that word is not taken strictly, which he himself formerly granted, or give up the place, which is (by his own confession) the only place of all the New Testament, for warranting of such Ceremonies, or fly to decency, upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order, as ha●h been showed.  
Nothing material is added in the rest of the rejoined. his answer unto this argument (where our divines are observed, to distinguish order and decency, from mystical Ceremonies, the context of the Chapter, 1 Cor. 14. is declared to respect n● mystical Ceremonies, the Phrase of Scripture is showed to consent) nothing (I say and the Reader may see) is added; but only the same things are repeated about order, and decency which are now sufficiently discussed.  
So the rejoinder hath nothing to say to the contrary, but that we may safely conclude, Ergo, to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we do, is not left to the liberty of the Church, i. e. it is unlawful.  
If there were nothing else against them, in all the Scripture, than this place, besides which the Defend, and rejoined can find none in all the New Testament for them, any indifferent man would say they are not allowed.  
Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies may shuffle up and down, first to O●der, and when they are beaten thence, to Decency, and from decency, when they can defend that no longer, to Edification, as the rejoined. doth: But all will not help. Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds, without starting, I will pawn my Head, their A●●hor will come home to them again, as finding no fast ground either in Order, Decency, or Edification, for double significant Ceremonies (such as o●rs) to ride at. The Defend, could frame no consequence out of any of these words, the rejoined, saith there is one, but he cannot show it. To the contrary consequence, nothing is answered of any moment.  
And is not this a miserable cause, which hath no place in all the N. Testament▪ which the best Advocates can allege for it, but only that, out of which it is utterly confounded? To the Defend, and Rejoinders maintaining such a cause, this testimony may be given that they would willingly, so fare as they can, favour things which the times favour, and therefore strive to make something of that which maketh nothing for them. In the former section, when Order, Decency, and Edification, should have been handled as rules, according to the title of the digression, the rejoinder suddenly breaketh off, referring them to a fit place. Now here in this place, he was constrained to touch upon them, but so softly, and sparingly, that it appeareth he found this no fit place than the former, for those reserved Considerations. When shall we come to the fit place?  
By this I hope the Reader is satisfied, that there is more in Ames his Argument than you imagined, and thinks that you had no reason to slight it before you had seen it. I will readily acknowledge that you are fa●e his superior for your incomparable skill in Critical learning and Antiquity, and all the world would account me a fool to say or think otherwise, but I hope it is no blasphemy to say, that he was not much your inferior for Logic, Philosophy, and Scholastical Divinity; in which latter, he was neore versed than most of our Protestant Writers: Comparisons I know are odious, bu●● Apologise for a dead man, and therefore I hope I shall be held excused: Indeed his memory ●●ght to be precious with me; for though I descent from him in some things, yet I must needs confess, that in my first study of Divinity, I most profited by him: I have often found in a few words of his that satisfaction, which I in vain searched for in more voluminous discourses. I know that he hath been contemned by many, but it hath been by Learned men that never read him, or by ignorant Readers that never understood him; and indeed unto those that have not made some tolerable progress in Philosophy, he will be in many places unintelligible; for he studied brevity, and for that purpose, frequently made choice of scholastical expressions: He lived and died an exile for his dislike, and opposition of our Ceremonies; and the Bishops were not contented to have hunted him from his Native soil, but pursued him beyond the Seas; for they engaged King James to command the than English Ambassador at the Hague to solicit against his employment in the netherlands Universities, and he prevailed with the State's General to exclude him from Leyden, where otherwise he had been received as a Professor; but making the like attempt at Franeker, the motion was rejected as unchristian and uncharitable, with some tart reflections upon the Bishop's malice. This I have received from a very good hand, one of his Scholars, that heard it from his own mouth: But I return from this digression.  
Upon the review of this Section I find, what you say of Ames his Argument for condemning of the Ceremonies from 1 Cor. 14. may with better reason be applied unto Bishop Mortons' medium for justifying of them, and with your leave, Mutatis mutandis, I shall apply it thereunto: To the reproach of my great stupidity, I willingly acknowledge, that it cannot-enter into my understanding what sense his buttoning and unbuttoning of▪ his Cassock is capable of▪ which with the best possible managery can be taught plainly to justify humane institution of religious mystical Ceremonies in the Church appropriated unto God's worship, ●e. by what Prosyllogismes or supplies, or advantages of art, this Enthymeme shall be rendered concludent. Bishop Morton buttoned and unbuttoned his Cassock, therefore it is lawful for Church governor's to invent and devise Symbolical Ceremonies, that is, those which teach things spiritual by their mystical signification, and appropriate them unto God's worship. He that can maintain this consequence to be not only true, but plain and evident, will be a formidable adversary indeed, as formidable an adversary as ever put pen to paper; and if you cannot maintain this Consequence, the terror of your name will with me in great part vanish, as touching argumentation; When the Spaniards came first into America, the inhabitants thought them to be immortal, but when they had once taken some of them, they put their heads under water, and there kept them until they had drowned them, and this soon altered their opinion: knowing your vast abilities, I looked upon you as a very formidable adversary, and expected from you very terrible arguments; but your arguments for the Ceremonies I have taken, and I think choked them with satisfying answers, and therefore you are not in this controversy so formidable an adversary as at first I thought you; but I impute this to the badness of your cause, and not to any defect in your abilities.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 36.  
His third and last impression now remains, wherein he undertakes to prove by three arguments, that custom is not the only rule of decency; and his first argument is, because the light and law of nature is also a rule of decency. To this I answer, that in those things, whereof alone he knows I there speak in the Sect: concerning uniformity, i.e. in things indifferent, gestures, and other Ceremonies in God's service, the law of nature is no rule at all: and I suppose he cannot think, I am sure he pretends not to prove, or so much as affirm it is, and therefore though not simply in all sorts of things, of which I speak not, nor can by any rules of discourse be supposed to have spoken, yet as to the matters then before me, wherein Ecclesiastic conformity consisted, custom, and only custom was the rule of decency.   

Jeanes.  
1. I had no reason to imagine that your words were to be restrained unto things indifferent, gestures and other Ceremonies in God's service, for you undertook to give us the importance of the Apostles words: Let all things be done decently, and the Apostles words reach unto even natural decency, now of that the light of nature is a rule.  
2. There be, as Bel●armine rightly lib. 2. de effectu sacramentor. cap. 29. some Ceremonies, which receive their institution as it were from nature itself, which may be called natural Ceremonies, as to look up to Heaven, to lift up our hands, to bow our knees, and knock our breasts when we pray unto God: Quaedam Caerem●niae sunt ab ipsa natura quodammodo institutae, quae naturales dici possunt, quale est respicere in coelum, tollere manu●, flectere genua, tundere pectus, eum Deum oramus; i●● a enim natura ipsa docet, unde et●am communes sunt Gentilibus & quibuscunque sectis.  
3. Those Ceremonies which we oppose, symbolical Ceremonies, such as the Cross and Surplice, are not things indifferent, because they are imposed and used as parts of God's worship, and no worship of God is indifferent.  
4. Suppose that I concurred with you in holding the questioned Ceremonies to be lawful, yet I should deny Custom to be the only rule of their Decency, and that because the light and Law of Nature, right Reason is a rule thereof too. My argument I shall thus reinforce; If Custom be in the Ceremonies of God's service, the only rule of Decency, than nothing else can be a rule thereof besides Custom; but this is false; for the light and law of Nature is also a rule thereof: therefore in the Ceremonies of God's service Custom is not the only rule of Decency.  
The sequel of the Major is evident from what Logicians say concerning, first, the exposition, secondly, conversion, and thirdly, consecution of exclusive propositions.  
1. Concerning the exposition of them, Propositio exclusiva subjecti affirmativae exponitur per duas exponentes, quarum prima est affirmata, & appellatur praejacens, estque nihil alind quam propositio exclusiva, dempto signo exclusivo: & secunda est negativa de subjecto exclusiuè infinitato, vel negato. This exclusive proposition then in the Ceremonies of God's service, Custom is the only rule of Decency, must be expounded by these two.  
1. By an Affirmative: in the Ceremonies of God's service, Custom is a rule of Decency: And then  
2. Negative: whatsoever is not Custom, that is not in the Ceremonies of God's service a rule of Decency.  
2. Concerning the conversion of them, Propositio exelusivae subjecti affirmativa convertitur in universalem affirmativam de transpositis terminis. The Doctor's proposition then, Custom in the Ceremonies of God's service, is the only rule of Decency, is converted into this Universal Affirmative, every rule of Decency is Custom.  
Well, upon this premised concerning the exposition and conversion of exclusive propositions, Logicians lay down concerning the consecution of them this rule: Ab exclusiva ad exponentes propositiones itemque ad universalem conversam bona est consequentia: By this rule than it will follow, that if Custom in the Ceremonies of God's service be the only rule of Decency, that then in them nothing but Custom is the rule of Decency, and that every rule of Decency is Custom. The Major then is fortified beyond all exception.  
The Min●r I shall confirm by instancing in the light or law of Nature, right reason, this to join issue with you, would be in the controverted Ceremonies of God's service, if they were lawful, a rule of Decency.  
For first, what is the end of a rule but to regulate and direct? now the light and law of Nature regulates all gestures and Ceremonies in God's worship, as touching their Decency.  
2. It is in these particulars not only a rule, but a principal rule of Decency, by which all Customs are to be tried, examined, and regulated.  
For the confirmation of this I shall add three reasons.  
1. Gestures, Ceremonies agreeable unto Custom may be found to be dissonant unto the light and law of Nature, and to be rejected as undecent.  
2. Custom is not the rule of decency unless it have the force of a Law, and that it cannot have, say the Schoolmen, rightly, unless it be rationabilis, and such it cannot be, unless it be agreeable unto right reason, which is all I mean by the light and law of nature; though the light of nature do not dictate the necessity of it, yet it must give allowance and approbation of it; without its warrant it is not to be received as Decent.  
A 3. Argument shall be ad hominem: by nature you say, out of Suldas, is meant 1 Cor. 11.14, Custom of some continuance in that place, and what more probable reason can be assigned for terming of a Custom Nature, than its conformity unto its allowance and approbation by the Law of Nature?  
It being thus proved, that even in the Vestures, Gestures, and Ceremonies of God's service, upon supposition of their lawfulness, the law and light of nature is a principal rule, it will follow that we may with fare better reason say of it, than of custom, that 'tis, in the matters spoken of, the only rule of Decency: For  
1. We may truly say of the law and light of Nature, that it is in Ceremonies the only rule of Decency, though Custom be a rule thereof also; because the exclusive particle only doth not exclude things subordinate: Now Custom is a rule of Decency subordinate unto the light of Nature, and therefore is not excluded, when I say, the light and law of nature is the only rule of Decency.  
2. We cannot say of Custom, with any truth at all, that it is the only rule of Decency in the matters before you, wherein Ecclesiastical conformity consisteth, because the only things excepted from being excluded by the particle only, are things subordinate, and things necessarily contomitant; but now the light and law of Nature as it is not subordinate unto custom, so neither is it necessarily concomitant therewith; for divers customs in Ceremonies may be, and have been irrational against the light and law of Nature: The law and light of Nature than is excluded from being a rule of Decency, by saying Custom is the only rule of Decency.  
Add hereunto, that the particle solum, only, doth not always exclude à totâ specie, but sometimes only à summitate speciei, as may be seen in Scheibl. topic. c. 2. n. 29. Now Custom is a less principal rule, that must undergo trial and examination by the light and law of Nature, as a superior rule.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 37, 38.  
His second argument is wholly deceitful, and must be discovered to be so, by reducing it to rules of art. 'Tis by him variously form in two several Syllogisms. The first is this.  
Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the only rule of Decency.  
But divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custom. The conclusion now must be, Therefore Custom is not the only rule of Decency.  
38. But this is no regular Syllogism, 'tis in no mood or figure, not readily reducible to any; and therefore 'twas his only way to presume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.   

Jeanes.  
I never said that it was an exact and regular Syllogism.  
But first, here is matter for a Categorical Syllogism, and it is easily reducible  
1. Unto a Hypothetical Syllogism.  
2. Ad Syllogismum ducentem ad impossibile.  
1. Here is matter for a Categoric all Syllogism: The only rule of Decency hath not any thing undecent agreeable unto it: Custom hath many undecent things agreeable unto it: Therefore Custom is not the only rule of Decency.  
2. 'Tis easily reducible,  
1. Unto a hypothetical Syllogism.  
2. Ad Syllogisinum ducentem ad impossibile.  
1. It may be reduced unto an hypothetical Syllogism thus: If Custom be the only rule of Decency, than nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto Custom: But divers things are undecent which are agreeable unto Custom; Therefore Custom is not the only rule of Decency.  
The sequel of the Major is evident, because nothing can be undecent that is agreeable to the only rule of Decency.  
And the Minor cannot be denied: In the Syllogism then there is only a Crypsis, the Major is concealed, and the proof thereof placed in its room, and Cryptical Syllogisms are in all discourses justifiable, when they may be reduced: If you call upon me to reduce the hypothetical Syllogism, unto which it is reduced, unto a Categorical, you will herein be unreasonable; for those hypothetical Syllogisms that have four terms in the Major, are hardly capable of reduction unto a Categorical Syllogism; So Scheibler hath instructed me, de Propos. etc. cap. 12, n. 24.  
2. It is reduced unto that Syllogism which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which doth ducere ad impossibile, as it is taken largely for that argumentation which doth reduce an adversary unto an absurdity upon his own principles; for from this your principle, that Custom is the only ●ule of Decency, this Syllogism will ine,vitably follow,  
Nothing that is agreeable to the only rule of decency can be undecent.  
All things customary are agreeable to the only rule of decency: Therefore nothing customary can be undecent.  
But now this conclusion is apparently false, therefore one of the premises is also false; for ex vero nil nisi verum sequitur: It is not the Major, for the only rule of decency makes and denominates every thing conformable unto it to be decent, therefore it is the Minor, which is, that all things customary are agreeable unto the only rule of decency; and if this proposition be false, than your position is false too, that custom is the only rule of decency, because all things customary are agreeable unto custom.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 39, 40●  
But he hath thought fit to vary this Syllogism, and give it in other terms, and the● one might hope it would be exactly form, 'T thus thus,  
It is impossible that the only rule of decency should be undecent. But yet it is very possible that many customs should be indecent. Therefore he shall conclude, that custom is not the only rule of decency.  
40. But this is no Syllogism neither, being far removed from the measure that Logicians exact, and such as by which I will prove any thing true, that is the most distant from it. For example, it is granted truth, that Law is the only rule of justice, yet this I shall disprove by a Syllogism exactly form by Mr. J. his model. Thus,  
It is impossible, that the only rule of justice should be unjust. But yet it is very possible that many Laws should be unjust, Therefore I shall conclude that Law is not the only rule of Justice,   

Jeanes.  
This is a modal Syllogism, framed exactly according to the rules of Logic touching modal Syllogisms; as for that Syllogism which you parallel unto it, it hath no alliance with it; for both the premises of mine are true, and the Minor of yours is grossly and palpably false; for unjust laws are not, in propriety of speech, laws, but are so termed only equivocally, as a painted, a dead man, is said to be a man: turpe praeceptum non est lex, sed in●quitas, for obligation is essential unto a law; now every law obligeth in the name of God, by authority derived from him, and the glorious name of God cannot oblige unto any thing that is unjust: the Fathers, Schoolmen and ancient Philosophers are all so unanimous in asserting of this, and have for this their assertion such pregnant and convincing reasons, as that I cannot but wonder, that a man of your learning should be of an other opinion; but in your next we shall hear what arguments you have for your dissent: In the mean while, I shall desire the Reader to take notice of the witnesses, and reasons produced, amongst many others, by Suarez, and Gregory de Valentia, for what I affirm,  
1. Suarez de legib. lib. 1. cap. 9 De ratione, & essentia legis, est, inquit, ut praecipiat justa: Assertio est non solum certa secundum fidem, sed etiam clara secundum naturalem rationem. Et ita eam tradunt non solum Theologi, & Patres inferius allegandi, sed etiam passim Philosophi etc. Verum tamen haec ipsa conditio dupliciter explicari potest, scilicet vel negative, ut scilicet quod praecipitur, nec injustum, nec turpe sit; vel positive, ut sit justum & honestum.  
Conditio ergo hae● praecipue intelligitur priori modo, & sic est evidens, alia vero ratione invenitur in legibus divinis, & aliter in humanis. In divinis enim ratio est recti●udo per essentiam divinae voluntatis. Est enim Deus summe bonus, & ideo non potest aliquid pravum praecipere. etc.  
De legibus autem humanis, hoc fundatur in alio principio. Name legislator humanus men habet voluntatem perfect●m, sicut Deus, & ideo quantum est ex se, & quoad factum, potest interdum iniqua praecipere, ut constat: non tamen habet potestatem ad obligandum per iniquas leges, & ideo licet iniqua praecipiat, tale praeceptum non est lex, quia vim, aut valorem ad obligandum non habet. etc.  
Et ita est clara ratio assertion is, tum quia illa potestas, scilicet obligandi, est a Deo, quae tem a Deo sunt, ordinata sunt: Ergo est data in honum, & in aedificationem, non in malum, se● in destructionem: Tum etiam quia nullus inferior potest obligare contra legem, & veluntatem superioris; sed lex praecipiens pravum actum est contra legem Dei prohibentis illum: Ergo non potest obligare, quia impossibile est, homines simul obligari ad agendum, & non agendum aliquid: s● autem opus pravam est prohibitum lege d●vina, non potest lex inferioris tollere illam superioris obligationem: Ergo nee potest inducere saam: Ergo ejus lex tali opere non potest esse valida. Et de hac justitia legis loquebatur August, lib. 1. de libero arbit. cap. 5. cum dixit, mihi lex esse non videtur, quae justa non fuerit. Et de eadem intelligi potest, quod dicit lib. de vera relig. cap. 31. Conditor legum temporalium, si vir bonus est & sapiens, legem consulit aeternam, ut secundum ejus incommutabiles regulas, quid sit pro tempore vitandum, jubendumque discernat. Vnde sicut lex aeterna solum justa praecipit, quia est i●sa justitia per essentiam, ita vero lex humanae esse debet participatio ejus, & ideo non potest valide praecipere, nis● justa, & homesta, juxta illud Prov. 8. Per me Reges regnant, & legum conditores justa decernunt.  
Atque hinc ulterius concluditur, hanc conditionem, etiam positive intellectam esse de ●●tione legis.; quamvis non uno & eodem modo singulis applicanda sit, etc.  
Ex h●c assertione sic declarata duo inferre possumus. Vnum est ad illam maxime pertinere primam conditionem positam ab Isidoro, ●cilicet, ut lex sit honesta, quod ex ipsa vocis proprietate▪ satis pate●. etc.  
Secundo infertur ex dictis, legem non habentem hanc justitiam, seu honestatem, non esse legem, neque obligare, ve●um etiam nec servari posse etc.  
Unto this of Suarez I shall add what Gregory de Valentia hath to the same purpose, tom. 2. disp. 7. quaest. 1 punct. 3. Nomen legis mag● prop●re significat rectam aliquam regulam praescribentem communitati alicui perfectae modum necessarium ad bonum ejusdem communitatis etc.  
Atque ho mod● accipit D. Thomas legem, cum infra quaest. 96. art. 4, inquit leges iniquas magis esse violentias, quam leges. Item quaest. 90. art. 2 & 3. Vbi defin●t, legem ad bonum commune ordinari, & ab eo, qui curam gerit communitatis ferri.  
Sic etiam D. Augustinus lib. 1. de libero arbitrio cap. 5. leg●m accepit, cum dixit, legem non videri, quae justa non sit. In quam sententiam lib, 19 de civitate Dei, cap. 21. inquit etiam, non esse jura dicenda, vel putanda, iniqua hominum constituta, Atque etiam legem esse regulam aliquam rectam censuit Clemens Alexandrinus, lib. 1. Stromatum, cum dixit: legem esse opinionens bonam, & regulam justorum, & injustorum. Item Plato in Dialogo primo de legibus, & in Epinome, ubi asseruit, finem legis esse Deum & cultum ejus. Item Philosophus lib. 5. Ethi●or. cap. 1. inquiens, legalia justa esse factiva & conservativa falicitatis, omniumque elarissime Cicero lib. 2. de legitus: Constat, inquit, profecto adsalutem civium ●ivitatumque incolumitatem, vitamque quietam, & beatam, conditas esse leges. Et post, cum dixisset eos, qui pernicio●a, & injusta populis jara descripsissent, quidvis aliud potius tulisse, quam leges, concludit, perspicuum esse in ipso no mine leges interpretando, inesse vim, atque sententiam justi, & juris colendi.  
By this you may see, that in your Syllogism there are four terms, for laws in the Minor are taken improperly and equivocally, in the conclusion properly and univocally; But custom in my Syllogism, both in Minor and Conclusion, is taken properly and univocally, for custom is predicated univocally of the most undecent customs.  
For farther justification of my Syllogism I shall reduce it in like manner that Logicians reduce Syllogisms made in Baroco and Bocardo, to wit, with that reduction which is ad impossibile or per deductionem ad absurdum: I suppose, that you will grant my premises, for the minor you confess in terminis in the next Section; And the Major cannot be denied with any colour of reason; for the rule of decency is, in some so●t, an exemplary cause of decency, and it is impossible for the exemplary cause of decency to be undecent. Well then, I suppose, that you grant the premises, and only deny, that the inference of the conclusion from these premises is legitimate; if you grant the premises to be true, than you grant the Propositions, that are contradictory unto them, to be false, and hereupon it will follow, that if I take the contradictory of my Conclusion, and can thence, joined with one of my premises conclude, that one of the premises which I suppose, you grant, is false, hereby I shall convince you, that the principal conclusion, which is contradictory unto this, was true: The contradictory of my conclusion is, custom is the only rule of decency (I take contradictory largely, as some opposite propositions are said by Logicians, to be contradictory de lege) Now this I take and subjoin unto my Major, and here hence I infer the contradictory of my Minor, all which will make up this following Syllogism.  
It is impossible for the only rule of Decency to be undecent.  
But Custom is the only rule of Decency.  
Therefore it is impossible that any custom should be undecent.  
But the conclusion is false, and, I suppose, that you grant the contradictory thereof. Now if ●he conclusion be false, one of the premises must needs be false; for, ex vero ●il nisi verum sequitur. Now 'tis not the Major, for I suppose, and that with very good reason, that it is granted by you, therefore ' ●●s the Minor: now the Minor is contradictory unto the conclusion which you deny, and therefore the conclusion, which you denied, is true, viz. that Custom is not the only rule of decency: for of contradictory propositions both cannot be true, Contradictio semper dividit verum à falso.  
Thus you see my Syllogism is demonstrated to be true, demonstratione ducente ad impossi●ile vel absurdum.  
But for the fuller clearing of it, I shall propound and answer two objections, that I foresee may be made against it, by such as are not well skilled in Modal Syllogisms.  
The first is, that the duo modi impossibile and possibile are repeated but once a piece in my Syllogism, and in a good Syllogism every term is to be put twice.  
The answer unto this in brief is, that in a Modal Syllogism, the modus is none of the terms, but only a Syncategorematical word, so Vallius Introduct. Log. par. 3. cap. 12. In terminis, inquit, non numera tur modus sicut; enim in conversione propositionum modus non numeratur inter praedicata vel subjecta, sed est quid additum ill is, sie in Syllogismis modalibus, modus non numeratur inter terminos, unde etiam saepe in Syllogismo modali non potest inferri conclusio ' ●um modo, sed sine illo. The very same thing is taken notice of by Scheibl. concerning such Modal Syllogisms as consist of Modal compounded propofitions, Ihi enim inquit, quod modalis particula non habeat vel rationem subjecti, vel rationem praedicati; sed simpliciter habeat se ex parte copulae: inde clarum est, quod in istis modalibus Syllogismis, particula modalis ter poni potest, nempe in singulis taelium Syllogismorum partibus, veluti: Necesse est hominem esse animal. Necesse est Petrum esse hominem. Ergo necesse est Petrum esse animal. Hîc aio, particulam necesse, nec habere rationem praedicati, nec subjecti, sed esse ex parte copulae, quia in propositione, assumptione, & conclusione reperitur. At nullus terminus in Syllogismo ter poni●potest.  
A second objection is, that in the Modal Syllogisms mentioned by Aristotle, this mixture or combination of impossibile and possibile is not at all mentioned.  
For answer, Aristotle instanceth in Modal Syllogisms, wherein there is a mixture of necesse and contingens, and Logicians generally hold that impossibile is reduced unto necessarium and possibile unto contingens. Let two speak for all.  
1. The but now quoted Vallius in lib. 1. prior pag. 38. Impossibile. (inquit Philopenus) comprehenditur sub necessario, quia quod est necessarium, est impossibile ut non sit, sicut quia homo est necessario animal, impossibile est ut non sit animal: & eâdem ratione quod est impossibile, est necessarium ut non sit. Similiter possibile comprehenditur sub contingenti, quod enim contingit esse, ho fieri potest, ●eu est possibile, & quod potest non esse, contingit non esse: adeoque id, quod proprie vocatur possibile, concurrit cum contingenti. He quotes also for it, if my memory fail not, Burana affirming as much ex Alexandro.  
The second Author is a late one read by every Freshman, Burgersdicius institut. Log. lib. 2. c. 14. Propositiones modi impossibile annumerantur propositionibus modi necesse; & propositiones modi possibile, iis quae sunt modi contingit.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 41.  
To discover this deceit then, the Syllogism, which is now no Syllogism, must he● somewhat better form, according to the rules of Logic, and reduced, as near as it can, into a true Syllogism. Thus,  
Whatsoever is itself undecent, cannot be the only rule of Decency.  
But custom is itself undecent.  
Therefore Custom cannot be the only rule of Decency.  
Here before it can be defined, whether this be a regular Syllogism, or no? It must be demanded, quanta est minor, is the assumption universal or particular? If it be particular, then either the conclusion must be particular also, or else ' tîs a false Syllogism. And if the conclusion be particular, than it infers no more, than that some undecent custom cannot be the only rule of decency, which is willingly granted by me, who do not at all affirm it of undecent customs. But if the Minor be universal, then 'tis a false proposition; for certainly all customs are not indecent. The short is, Nature may be the rule of one sort of decency, and Custom the only rule of another; yet if the custom be in itself indecent, then of such indecent custom it is not pretended, that it is either only, or at all the rule of decency. And so still my proposition may stand good, which as it belonged not to natural decency, so much less to what is by nature, or in itself undecent, never imagining it reasonable, that what gestures were against those Laws of Nature, or Scripture, or any other Law of decency, or rather of natural comeliness and honesty, should by pretence of any custom whatever, be introduced into God's worship: 'Tis sufficient that some customs may be decent, or in themselves not indecent, and that all decency in the service of God, is to be regulated and judged of by conformity with them: For I said not, that all customs were the rule of decency, but that some were, and that there was no other rule, but custom: This, I hope, hath discovered the invalidity of his second Argument.   

Jeanes.  
My Syllogism is, as I have demonstrated, a true Syllogism; you might the● very well have spared the pains you have taken to reduce it, as near as you could, to a true Syllogism; for there was no need of it: You deserve then no thanks for your labour, but I have reason to expect reparation from you for defamation of my Syllogism: This Section therefore I might wholly pass over, but yet I shall stay a while upon the examination of a second restriction that you put upon your dictate: you have already told us, that it is not to be understood of all decency. Now you give us to understand, that 'tis not meant of all customs, but only of some such as are not undecent; when you say custom is the only rule of decency, your meaning is some customs are the only rule of some kind of decency in the Ceremonies of God's worship.  
But whether this liberty which you assume in thus limiting your position be justifiable, is very questionable; for after this rate, what gross absurdities may any man maintain? If I should say, that solum brutum est animal: that a spirit only is substance: that number only is quantity: that Baptism is the only Sacrament of the New Testament: would not every one cry out against these propositions as untrue, as well they might? and do you think they would pass for currant? though I should come with an after game, and go about to limit them, in such a manner as you have done, by your assertion, and say, my meaning was, that solum brutum est animal irrationale: that a spirit only is an incorporeal substance: that number only is discrete quantity: that Baptism is the only Sacrament of the New Testament of initiation; and yet these restrictions are altogether as fair and allowable as yours.  
2. I did not think your proposition capable of having an universal sign affixed unto it; and my reason was, because as Aquinas p. 1. q. 31. art. 3. observeth out of the Summularii, dictio exclusiva immobilitat terminum cui adjungitur, ut non possit fieri sub eo descensus pro aliquo suppositerum, non enim sequitur, solus homo is animal rationale mortale: Ergo solus Socrates.  
But yet notwithstanding this, I thought your proposition might be propositio de Idaea, as they say; and so, though it were not formally, it would be equivalently universal.  
But now I shall lay aside this conjecture, because you inform us, that your indefinite proposition, was intended by you for a particular proposition, only I shall propound some objections against your making it a particular proposition.  
1. When you say Custom is the only rule of Decency, you speak of Custom either formally or materially; if you speak of Custom formally and reduplicatiuè as Custom, why then every Custom is a rule of Decency, because à quatenus ad de omni valet consequentia, that which doth agree to a thing as such, doth agree to every singular contained under it: but if you speak of Custom only materially, and your meaning be, that Custom sub tali formali under such a consideration or qualification, is the only rule of Decency, why then this formale, this consideration or qualification of Custom, may, with fare better reason, be said to be the importance of the Apostles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, then according unto Custom, because Custom will be but the materiale in the rule of Decency.  
2. Until you exprésse how those some Customs may be qualified, that you make to be the only rule of Decency, your interpretation of the Apostles words, Let all things be done decently, will be very obscure, explicatio ignoti, if not per ignotius, yet per aequè ignotum, and your proof that you bring for your Exposition will be as dark and doubtsome: Thus both will run, Let all things be done according to some customs, because some customs are the only rule in some things of some decency, whether that which you call the clear importance of the place, do not leave the Reader in an uncertainty, be you yourself judge.  
3. The quantity of indefinite propositions may be gathered from their matter; in a necessary matter they are universal, in a contingent, particular: Now I demand whether to be the rule of decency be predicated of custom necessarily or contingently? if necessarily, than custom cannot but be the rule of decency, and then all custom is a rule of decency: A necessary proposition that is affirmative, direct, natural, where superius praedicatur de inferiori, or aequale de inaequali, is also the omni: if it be predicated of it contingently, than custom may be, and may not be a rule of decency, and then I desire you to evidence unto us how customs being thus a rule of decency, viz. contingently, will be a solid proof, that the clear importance of the Apostles words, Let all things be done decently, is, let all things be done according unto custom? and your best and speediest way to clear this unto us, will be by reducing your argument into a Syllogism.  
4. If to be a rule of decency be predicated contingently of custom, than custom is only a fallible rule of decency, and therefore it needs regulation by a higher rule; and if there be in the Ceremonies of God's worship a higher rule than custom, it will hereupon inevitably follow, that custom is not in them the only rule of decency.  
5. You implyedly give us the Character of those Customs which you affirm to be the only rule of decency, when you say, that of such undecent customs it is not pretended, that 'tis either only, or at all the rule of decency: Now all customs, in the Ceremonies of God's service, are either decent or undecent: the Custom that is undecent is not at all a rule of decency, and therefore your position is to be understood of that Custom which is decent: for betwixt decent and undecent customs in the Ceremonies of God's service there is no medium, as I have showed already: the upshot of your meaning then is, that some Customs, viz. such as are decent, are the only rule of decency, etc. What sobriety is in this limitation will appear, if we will consider that herein we have a twofold decency: one in the rule, decent customs; 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 custom itself, I demand, What is the rule of that decency, whether custom itself, or some other thing? I presume you will not say Custom itself; for than it would be an underived, unsubordinate, and independent rule, a rule of itself: and if you should say that some other thing besides custom is the rule of the decency which is in custom, th●● by conformity unto this, we must judge of the decency of Customs in the Ceremonies of God's worship, whether they be decent or undecent? and from this it is obvious to infer, that in Ceremonies there is a rule of decency antecedent unto Custom, by which Custom itself is to be regulated and measured; and therefore Custom is not the only rule of Decency. Your limitation then is so fare 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 natural decency) but that the decency of any Ceremony in God's service, wherein God and Nature have prescribed nothing particularly, must be regulated according to those measures, which the customs of any place do allow to be reverential among them; or, in yet plainer words, the civil customs of any nation, by which this or that sort of gesture is rendered a token of reverence, are the only rule, by which the decency of indifferent gestures, etc. is to be judged of, in order to God's 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 talk 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: Custom is not the only rule of all decency in the Ceremonies of God's service, wherein God and Nature have prescribed nothing particularly: Verbi gratiâ, in the Surplice and Cross: For your Principles I suppose will lead you to assert the decency of the first usage of the Cross in Baptism, and of the Surplice in Preaching and Praying; and indeed if the first usage of these Ceremonies was undecent, it was sinful: and besides, this decency was not a natural decency, dictated by the Law of Nature, as you yourself will confess; but now if there were a decency in the first usage of these Ceremonies, Custom 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 Custom.  
For conclusion of this first part of mine exception, I shall entreat the Reader to take notice of the definition of Custom, usually quoted out of Isiodore: Consuetudo est jus quoddam moribus institutum quod pro lege suscipitur cum lex deficit. By this definition, Custom hath not the force of a Law, but where the Law is defective, and the Word, the Law of God is not defective in appointing religious mystical Ceremonies, for 'tis so sufficiently profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, 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 Custom 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; Aims in the place forementioned showeth, that order requireth not such Ceremonies as ours, and he giveth this reason, because order requireth not the institution of any new thing, but only 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, etc. from the context of the Chapter, and from the usage of the word elsewhere, 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 we may hereupon argue à conjugatis, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be sometimes rendered appointment. But because it may sometimes be rendered appointment, will it therefore follow that it must be so rendered 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 Burgess in his Rejoinder unto Ames, pag. 78. a book published by the special 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 prophecy one by one etc. 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 custom and appointment. Yet the D. hath a hard task to perform, before he can come nigh his conclusion, that the words of Paul, are a proof of the more than lawfulness of prescription of such Ceremonies as ours, in a Church. For he must prove that custom and order here, are taken in such a latitude, as that they include not only the customs 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 only love of the truth that engaged me in so unequal an encounter, and therefore I hope the D. will pardon and excuse my boldness. If he can by dint of argument prove the truth to be on his side, I shall not be sorry or ashamed to be overcome by him.  
45. To this, my answer will be very brief, 1. By giving the reason of my rendering, 2. By evidencing, that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendering, yet my cenclusion would very regularly follow thence, and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainsayer, about my rendering. 46. For the first it is manifest to any that knows 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [orderly, or in order] lying more consonant with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unreason can be rendered, 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 rendering 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 only 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 affairs, 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 than 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 yourself, 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 knows 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 Latin word, Secundum, out of Cicero and Suetonius.  
But suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated here, according, yet this will no ways disadvantage our sense, for, according, applied to actions, signifieth, usually, the manner of such actions; so that both it, and the no●ne unto which it is joined, may be paraphrased, by an adverb, and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as much as, orderly.  
Add 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. 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 rendering of it, I had sufficient reason to render it thus.   

Jeanes.  
Indeed I acknowledged that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes be rendered appointment; but I added, that it doth not therefore follow that it must be so rendered in this place, & unless you can prove that it must be so rendered 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 embraced 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 seeing 'tis favoured by the general consent of both Translators, and Commentators, though, as you observe in the foregoing section, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lie more consonunt in sound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for I do not think that the Apostle was bound always 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 orderliness, and forbidding all confusion in Ecclesiastical affairs, must by consequence be interpreted to command the instituting and observing Uniformity of Ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.  
First there is no possibility of worshipping God externally and publicly, without use of some Ceremonies, or circumstances of time, place, and gestare, etc.  
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 uniformly 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, than still is that a law of that body, as of a council, etc. and as truly so, as the constitution of a single Prelate can be thought to be. And so the conclusion regularly follows, that to the preserving but of order, or orderliness 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 prescribed for uniformity. What can be denied in this process 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. Man's 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 always in Baptism, have some admonition to profess the faith, and iherefore in England, a Cross. We must use reverend gestures in receiving the holy communion; and therefore in England we must kneel in the act of receiving. But we may conclude thus; we must have a fit place to meet in, and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation, therefore we must have this. We must have a convenient time to meet in, and this hour is generally most convenient for our Congregation: therefore this. The Monks may as well conclude: we must have some garments; therefore we must in one order have black; in another white; in a third, black over white, or white over black; in a fourth, grey; a fifth, party coloured; in some, all woollen; in some, all linen; &c. ad infinitum, as well (I say) every whit, as the rejoinder can conclude from a garment, to a Surplice; from admonition, to the sign of the Cross, or from reverence in a table-gesture; ●o kneeling.   

Jeanes.  
Though you cannot see what can be denied in this process, yet he that runs may read what is constantly denied by the Non-conformists, if he ever read their books: they deny over and over, over and over etc. 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, etc. And you may affirm, but can never prove, that there is no possibility of worshipping God externally, and publicly 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 lie prostrate at your feet to be trampled upon and triumphed oven: and until this proof be made, you can never regularly infer, 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 uniformly performed.  
If you shall say that by Ceremonies you understand only circumstances of time, place, decency, order, and the like, I shall confess myself to be mistaken, but must withal for my own discharge aver, 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 calls for confirmation, and until you shall bethink yourself of some reason to confirm it, I shall offer against it these following instances, unto which it is no difficult matter to add many more; suppose the members of Churches in a City meet at nine of the clock for God's worship, and in the Country Parishes adjoining, where many people live at a great distance from their Churches, they meet at ten or half an hour 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 God's 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 plain; here was no uniformity, but you will not, I believe, 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 overthrown, I need not stay upon the following, which will be useless and impertinent, without the two former be presupposed as true.   

Dr. Hammond. sect. 50. 51, 52, 53, 54.  
What can be denied in this process, I foresee not, yet when 'tis 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 only to the customs and appointments of the Apostolic 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 enforces, is uniform obedience to them.  
52. But than Secondly, When for many circumstances of God's worship, there is n● order particularly taken by Christ and his Apostles, as in what gesture public supplication shall be addressed, in what, lauds and hymns, and confession of the faith, etc. 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 souls; and when those rules are not given only to the persons that then lived in the Church of Corinth, etc. 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 Apostles 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? Certainly 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. 'Tis granted him, if he please, that what Christ, and his Apostles have already prescribed, should not be repealed by those, that thus succeed them; should they rashly assume that power, they would not in so doing act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether regularly, or according to appointment; but for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in which they have made no rules, but left order to Titus, etc. (i e. by parity of reason, to the Bishop in every Island) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainly with perfect safety be exercised by them, and that necessarily infers our obligation to yield 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 confirm.  
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 uniform obedience is to be yielded by the members of each respective Church unto such Ceremonies in God's 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 custom and order are here taken in such a latitude, as that they include the customs 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 uniform observance of Ceremonies instituted unto its hand by the Church in a former age.  
This pray supposed, I demand, whether you hold it here necessarily ordained by the Apostle, that all the Church of God in succeeding Ages, should either institute Ceremonies in God's worship, or else appoint and command such as have been already instituted? If you think 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 lawful, I may, I believe, 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 God's 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 specify 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 lawfulness of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, prescription of Ceremonies in a Church, and of Uniformity therein: Now I thought that you were to be understood of all Churches, and then by more than lawfulness, I suppose, you had meant necessity: You say that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the prescription of Ceremonies in a Church is more than lawful, 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 God's worship, which are by the Non-conformists expressly excluded from the Question, for they limit it only unto humane religious Ceremonies. Now betwixt these and the circumstances of God's worship, there is a great, and very wide difference.  
1. Circumstances of time, place, order, and decency, etc. are necessary, and appointed in general; but humane religious Ceremonies are not necessary in general, as will soon appear when you go about to prove such a necessity of them. It is impossible for God's worship to be performed without some circumstances, but it is very possible for God's worship to be celebrated without any humane religious Ceremonies.  
2. Circumstances of God's worship, viz. a fitting time and place, a decent Pew and Pulpit, a fair and handsome cloth for the Communion Table, are not Worship; but humane religious Ceremonies are in their nature Worship, as being instituted to lift up God's honour immediately in their use and end.  
3. Things of mere 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 God's wor● ship and service.  
But to come unto your own instances.  
Your first instance is in the gesture, in which public prayer is to be addressed.  
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 mere humane inventions, and so unnecessary in the general.  
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, Cross and the like. I do 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 be the multiplying of needless Controversies betwixt us, I shall acknowledge that a Church may enjoin the usage of any reverend, lowly, submissive gesture in public supplications, when there is conveniency for the usage thereof.  
But yet it will not hereupon follow, that all things are to be done in the gestures of public Prayer according unto the Church's appointment; for suppose the Church should prohibit in public 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 unlawful, because contrary unto the express direction of Scripture.  
Your second instance is impertinent too, for the gestures of laud's, Hymns and Confessions of the Faith, etc. is a matter of mere decency, and how remote matters of mere decency are from the Ceremonies in question, I have declared a little before, I shall therefore now only add these three things.  
1. That a rational man may by mere light of Nature, without any institution, easily gather, what gesture is fitting, decent and agreeable unto these actions.  
2. That notwithstanding this, the Governors or Officers of a Church may appoint in these actions any decent gesture or posture of the body, provided that by special institution they do not put upon it any mystical signification, and thereby make it a Worship.  
3. That from this grant it can never be inferred, that in those gestures which are to be used in laud's, Hymns, Confessions of the Faith, all things are to be done according to the appointment of Church Governors: and my reason is, because it is possible, that Church Governors may be so irrational, as to appoint here undecent gestures, as that the people should lie along on their faces in singing of Psalms 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 Superiors, 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 natural 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 be of an imperceptible validity.  
The Reader may farther, if he please, make another experiment touching these arguments, he may try what they will conduce unto the principal conclusion, that the words of Paul are a proof of the more than lawfulness 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 confess that I have been grossly 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 Superiors 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 we may pay obedience to them without practice of such Ceremonies: The place is urged by Bellarmine for the Pope's 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 haec 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, he 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 allege, 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 own 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 etc. 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 dou●ted etc. 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 confess that it sounds like a very strange proposition: however, you cannot expect that I should swallow it, until you bring some confirmation of it.  
By this the Reader is, I hope, satisfied, that though your reading of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according unto appointment, were to take place, yet you have brought nothing to prove that, which you were justly called upon for proof of, viz. that appointment, was to be taken here in this place of the Apostle in such a latitude, as to comprehend humane, as well as divine appointment.  
But though you fail in your proofs, your adversaries the non-conformists are before hand with you, for they have proved that men's institution of religious Ceremonies omitted by Christ and his Apostles is a most plain detraction and palpable derogation, from 

1. The all-sufficiency of the Scripture.  
2. Perfection of God's ordinances.  
3. Fidelity of Christ in his prophetical office.  
And lastly from the all-fulnes of his Kingly office.    
I foresee that it will be alleged, that all these arguments are long ago answered, and unto this I shall at present only give this short Reply, that they have been vindicated from all answers, as by others, so especially by Ames, and that this vindication of them remains unto this day unanswered.  
However, I shall stay a while upon two places in Deuteronomy, which the Non-conformists usually urge against our Ceremonies, and examine an answer which the conformists gives thereunto, because this examination will conduce very much unto the learning of the truth in the controversy of Ceremonies: the places are Deu●. 4.2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. And cap. 12.32. What thing soever▪ I command you, observe to do it: Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it,  
Unto these two places, the conformists answer by distinguishing of the parts, and the Ceremonies of God's worship; it is unlawful, say they, to add unto the parts of God's worship instituted by God, but 'tis lawful to add unto these Ceremonies of worship that are instituted by God.  
Unto this answer I thus reply.  
1. Moses sealed up with this prohibition not only the moral, but also the Ceremonial Law; it was unlawful then, to add unto the Ceremonial Law of Moses; and why should it not be as unlawful now, to add unto the Ceremonial Law of Ch●ist? vis hujus consequentiae, inq●it Didoclavius, patet ex eo, quod non minus nunc quam tune rationem humanam coerceri certis septis. & quasi cancellis circumscribi opus sit, ne in rebus divinis lasciviat, aut in superstitiones delabatur.  
2. The Scripture is a rule of even Ceremonies in God's worship, for it gives prescriptions and directions in the new Testament concerning the Sacraments of Baptis●●e and the Lords Supper; now if it doth not prescribe all Ceremonies requisite and convenient, then 'tis only a partial and imperfect rule of Ceremonies in God's worship; but we, for our part, think so honourably of Scripture, as that we cannot but hold it to be a perfect adequate and total rule of Ceremonial as well as moral worship, it is able to perfect the man of God, & throughly to furnish him unto all good works, and so unto all Ceremonies, that are good works.  
A third reply is, that the members of this distinction are not opposite, as the members of every good distinction should be, for Ceremonies of worship though th●y be not parts of that worship of which they are Ceremonies, yet they are parts of worship in general, for  
1. Worship is divided into moral and Ceremonial, so that Ceremonial worship is a subjective part of worship, a sort and kind of worship.  
2. Mosaical Ceremonies under the Law were, and the Sacraments under the Gospel are parts of worship: the distinction then betwixt the parts, and religious Ceremonies of worship, is an artless and false distinction. To make this yet more evident, I shall propound some arguments, by which the Non-conformists prove our Ceremonies to be external worship, for than it will follow, that they are parts of God's worship.  
1. Those external Ceremonies whose proper use is the honouring of God, are external worship: But our Ceremonies are such, and therefore they are external worship.  
2. All external Ceremonies in their nature, formally elicited from religion, are external worship: But our Ceremonies are such, and therefore they are external worship.  
This argument I find thus varied in a nameless author that hath collected twelve arguments against our Ceremonies.  
All mere and immediate actions of religion are parts of divine worship.  
But all religious Ceremonies, such as ours, are mere and immediate actions of religion.  
Therefore they are parts of divine worship.  
And these arguments might serve to evidence, that our Ceremonies, the surplice. Cross etc. Are imposed and used as parts of God's worship, though for want of a due and right author or efficient, they are false and unacceptable worship: But to return unto the Doctor, from whom I may seem to have digressed.   

Dr. Hammond.  
This is all the observance M. J. seems to expect of me at this time, unless his intimation to all admirers of M. Hooker, that they should vindicate their great patron of Ceremonies, may pass for an admonition to me, who acknowledge myself a thankful adorer of God's graces in that godly learned man, and so exact a few lines more above the regular account.  
56. This will detain me no longer, then whilst I mind the Reader, that in a discourse of the benefits which we receive from Christ in the Saerament, & otherwise, M. Hooker undertakes to set down how Christ in his humane nature is communicated to us, and so present with us; To this end three things he shows at large. 1. That as nothing created can be unlimited, or receive any such accident from any as may really make it infinite, so neither the soul nor body of Christ, nor Christ as man, nor according to his humane nature, can possibly be every where present, no nor the substance of the body of Christ, which neither hath or can have any presence but only local. 2. That this cannot be rendered possible, either by the grace of union with the Deity, nor by any other possible means, as he at large excellently deduceth it, pag. 300, 301, 302, 3. That it may peradventure be well enough granted in some sense, and after a sort, that Christ is every where present, as man, viz. 1. In respect of the conjunction of the humane nature with the Deity, which conjunction is extended as fare as the Deity, the actual position being restrained, and tied to a certain place, and 2. By cooperation with the Deity, and that in all things.  
57 Now on this third head, (without reflecting on the two former, which assure us of the author's meaning in it) two passages M. J. takes hold of, which if he know any thing in either Philosophy, or scholastical divinity, are both guilty of a gross mistake, and cannot be sufficiently wondered at by him, that they should fall from so a learned a pen.  
58. But I suppose there is no great skill in either of those learned faculties required, to distinguish betwixt that which truly and properly is, and that which may in some sense, and after a sort, and in two respects only (neither of which belong to the propriety of being) be well enough granted, and that with a (peradventure) also to have influence on all these.  
59 And what severity is this, to require of every learned man, that hath most largely refuted an adversary, to be so averse from all thoughts of peace, and reconciliation with him, that he may not allow him to speak truth, or but perhaps to speak truth in a sort, and in some sense, and in two only respects? All which are still more than intimations, that he thinks him to be absolutely, and in simplicity and propriety of speaking, in a gross error, impossible even to the power of God to have truth in it.  
60. If any should chance to say of an eloquent man, that you might hear an Angel speak in him, and I should reply, that it might peradventure be well enough granted in a sort, or in some sense, that when he spoke you might hear an Angel, assuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare man can truly be an Angel, nay that it was impossible for God himself to bring to pass, that at the same time he should be an Angel, and not an Angel, a man, and not a man, or which is all one, a bare man, and yet an Angel, or (in fewer words) when Christ saith he is a door, and a vine, if I should say that in a sort, and in some sense, and that in two respects, each of these had truth in them, would M. J. think fit to leave his subject, and let lose for three leaves together, and pawn all his philosophy, and scholastical (not considering what the consequence also may be to his practical) divinity, to accuse and wonder at, and never to give over wondering, and withal solemnly to refute this or that improper figurative speech, so perfectly acknowledged by the Speakers to be such?  
61. If he have that great leisure, and any prevalent temptation thus to lay it out, I shall only assure him, that I have not so much of either, as to attend these his motions, nor any other lover or admirer of Mr. Hooker, that I know of, and therefore beseech him contentedly to rest in this general return to his charge of that learned man, without expecting any more explicit, or particular survey of it: And so much for Mr. Hooker also.   

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

Dr. Hammond. sect. 62.  
I have thus without any other obligation, than what my desire to undeceive the Author and his Readers laid upon me, paid him now this my second observance: And may be allowed to think it time, that he who hath been so liberal of his uses of public refutation of others words, should find some vacancy for one use of more private (if not reprehension, yet) examination of his own actions: And then I shall offer to his consideration, how much more agreeable to the Laws of brotherly kindness or candour it hath been, to have proposed his exceptions in such a manner, or friendly address, as might have brought him home the same satisfaction, and saved others the importunity of these useless, because personal debates: When he hath sincerely observed in himself the motive of his other distant choice, I have obtained the end of my charity in mentioning it to him, and have no more to return to him at this time.   

Jeanes.  
We poor ignorant men, that use the trite, but not illogical Method of Doctrine and Use in Preaching, do usually first confirm our Doctrine, before we infer any Uses therefrom. Now Sir, if you will be pleased. first to prove, that it is much more agreeable to the Laws of Brotherly kindness or candour, to propose a man's exceptions against a printed Book in a way of private Letter (for that I conceive is the manner of friendly address that you speak of) than in a public way from the Press, especially when the said exceptions are propounded, not for any personal satisfaction, but for the undeceiving of others, unto which end the private way is no apportionare mean; I shall then proceed unto the use of, not only examination, but also reprehension of this mine action; but in the mean while I shall stand upon my justification, and maintain that I am guiltless of any unbrotherly, uncandid, and disrespective carriage towards you in the proposal of my objections, which was in as civil and friendly a manner, I am confident, as ever you received any from any Antagonist whatsoever.    

The most considerable Escapes of the Printer in the Letters, etc. And in the Reply to Dr. Hammond.  

First in the Letters.  
PAg. 2. l. 13. r. in all. p. 7. l. 6. r. papers. p. 8. l. 20. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 18. l. 30. r. essential to the nature of man. l. 34. r. subjectivis. p. 29. l. 13. r. much less. p. 23. l. ult. r. or of their nature. l. 42. r. continuet. p. 34. l. 12. deal â. l. 14. r. natural body shall. l. 30. r. a spiritual body. P. 36. l. 6. r. scum. p. 37. l. 19 r. consecutiuè. p. 42. l. penult. r. yet you think p. 47. l 10. r. in my absence. l. 34. r. indifferent and rational Reader.   

Secondly in the Reply unto Dr. Hammonds Vindication, etc.  
p. 5. l. 41. r. prohibit, p. 6 l. 33 r. improbable, p. 8 l. 42. r. apposito. p 9 l. 1. r. a place. p. 15. l. 26. r. it is p. 22. l. penult. r. then all▪ p. 25. Marg. two last lines r. initiantur. p. 26. l. 17. r. alas. p. 28. l. 41. r. tem●erari. p. 39 l. 22. r. had been. p. 38. l 2. r. from his. p. 39 l. 4. r. demones. p. 41. l. 13. r. aditum. p. 42. l. 36. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 47. l. ult. r. arguments. p. 50. l. 12. r. variae. p. 54. l. 48. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 55. l. 16. r. those. p, 56. l. antepenult, r. as distinct. p. 59 l 37. r. such kind of. p. 61. l. 21, 23. r. try. l. 35. r. six Gommandements. p. 62. l 27, r. as with what. p. 71. l. 32. r. autem. p. 72. l. 24. r. legis, p. 78. l. 15. r. uniformly. ibid. from l. 18. usque ad l. 36. there is made a part of Dr. Hammonds Vindication, which is a quotation out of Ames his Disp. about Hum. Ceremon. p. 481, 482, and should be placed in the Marg. against l. 39] l. 41. r. they will. p. 80. l. ult. r. Churches. p. 83. l. 28. r. fecerint.    

Some Advertisements to the Reader.  
I Shall in a word acquaint thee with the relation & pertinency of these two foregoing Debates unto the rest of the Book. The Letters have an apt connexion with the Tract of Original Righteousness. And the Reply unto Dr. Hammond may be referred unto the Treatile concerning the indifferency of humane actions; and indeed it was the Doctor's unjust charge of me, and Ames, with the denial of things Indifferent, that occasioned that Treatise. These two pieces have laid a long time by me (as can be attested by divers Gentlemen, and Ministers, unto whom they have long since been communicated) But I was persuaded by the Bookseller to defer the publication of them, until a Second Part of the Mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity was ready: And that had been long since extant, if Sickness, with other private crosses, together with the public troubles and distractions of the times, had not hindered: He hath also prevailed with me, to reserve for a Third Part, all my future Replies, unto all such as have, or shall write against me. Only I shall in part alter this resolution touching the Nameless Author of the Defence of Doctor Hammonds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not that I think it meritorious of any serious consideration; for 'tis fraught, all along, with such reviling, boasting, and insulting language, as is every way unsuitable unto the gravity of a Divine, the ingenuity of a Scholar, the charity, meekness, and humility of a Christian; nay the morality of a man. An ingenuous and good natured Pagan, would highly scorn to treat an Adversary with such incivilities, as he doth me. But because some, who are of the same persuasion with the Author in other particulars, have triumphed, and insulted in this his doughty work, as unanswerable; I shall therefore, as soon as that which is now under my hands (viz. An Exposition upon the 7th. of the Romans) is finished, address myself unto the examination thereof. I am so charitable as to think, that Dr. Hammond hath so much of Christianity, so much of a Minister, of a Scholar, of a Gentleman in him, as not to accept, or approve of this Thrasonical and Vainglorious Second. And if the Doctor disowne him, I might pass him by with silence, and a just neglect. But if the Doctor shall judge, that 'tis but justice, to chastise with scoffs, calumnies, and reproaches, so contemptible a person, as myself, for daring to descent from him, and to represent the reasons of my said dissent, though in a calm and modest way: I shall then appeal unto all the world, how unagreeable this is unto that humility and moderation, for which the Doctor is generally famed. To irritate the Doctor against me, this Libeler tells him, that I have publicly bragged, that I have made him a Dunce. But I profess, that this is a gross, and most unworthy untruth; and he can bring no witnesses for it, but Knights of the Post. With the like falsehood, disingenuity, and malice, he pretends, page 96. etc. that I contumeliously undervalue the Doctor's Critical Learning, and make him to be but a petty Grammaticaster, etc. And hereupon he spends near five pages, in an Apology for Critics in general, and the Doctor in particular. And what I pray is the ground of this terrible accusation? Why (forsooth) I said, I am very loath to enter into a contest with so great a Critic, about the meaning of a word. Hereupon he infers, that I make the Doctor to be but a whifling Grammarian; that I account a Critic but a Grammarian, and a Grammarian, but an empty Pedagogue: But that for these odious inferences there is no colour, or shadow in my words, will be quickly discerned by every Freshman. But such lose sequels as these, are very rife, and thick in his Book. And of this, I do not doubt, but I shall shortly, make so perfect a discovery, as shall give full satisfaction, touching the vast abilities of this our Mr. Thraso, unto all impartial Readers, save such whose understandings reach no further than Romances and Plays. His numerous Quotations out of the Schoolmen, have induced some to admire him for his deep insight into Scholastical Divinity. But let such his Admirers consider, whether he be likely to be such a profound School-man, as they suppose him, who talks of the Author of Collegium Complutense, as of a single person, pag. 30. and questions whether Capreolus quote Aquinas only to refute him, as the latter Schoolmen do the former, pag. 341. whereas Capreolus was the professed Champion of Aquinas: And his Book on the Sentences consisteth chief of collections out of Aquinas; and hereupon he is termed, Thomistarum princeps. Notwithstanding then this Gentleman makes such frequent Musters of the Names of the Schoolmen, as if he were Nomenclator to them, it is unto me very probable, that this is his first considerable voyage that he ever made into them; and that now too he hath traveled in them but by the Index. Three great advantages this our Libeler hath against me: First, his Billingsgate Rhetoric, by which, 'tis not improbable, he hoped to tempt me into such an outrageous fury, as his zeal for Doctor Hammond hath transported him with. But unto this I shall return nothing, but my pity and prayers, that God would pardon, and heal this his distemper. The second is, the concealment of his Name, for by this he hazards no credit; his pretence for it is, that I might not run into personal declamation. How liable he is to personal defamation, I know not: But let him be never so obnoxious, he may be secure, and need not fear any such usage from me: For 'tis that which I shall studiously decline in all contests whatsoever, though my Antagonist should be a Papist, a Turk, a Pelagian, or a Socinian; for I know that personal invectives will betray the best cause unto jealousies and suspicions. And besides, a man cannot throw dirt and dung in another's man's face, but some of it will stick to his own fingers. A third artifice that he hath, is the swelling of his Book into so large a volume, as that may either wholly prevent, or much delay all Replication. My Refutation was printed about three years since in 40. pages, and his Defence is now come forth in 644. pages. Unto this tediousness I shall apply what Bishop Hall speaks of his Popish Opponent; Should I follow him in this proportion, He might expect an Answer in Tostatus hides, whose first words should be, Quis legit haec? Or if my patience would delay my Reply to the just paces of his Answer, this Volume of his would perhaps be vanished into Grocer's shops, for waste paper, in thuris piperise cucullos, and would no more need answer, than now it deserveth one. Against this his voluminousnesse I shall make use of this expedient; I shall consult some learned and judicious friends, and desire them faithfully and impartially to select such passages as they think material, and them only I shall examine. But I shall detain thee, Reader, no longer. All that I have to desire further of thee, is thy patience, that thou wilt suspend a while thy censure, until thou canst hear what I can say for myself.   

An Explication of a passage in the Treatise of Things Indifferent, etc.  
WHereas in the Treatise concerning the Indifferency of humane actions, pag. 54. as also in my Reply to Dr. Hammonds Vindication, etc. page 5. I laid down this for a Rule out of some School●men, viz. That betwixt things privatively opposite there's no medium, no middle, either of abnegation, or of participation, in capable subjects; I find some to make a doubt concerning the latter, the middle of participation; for such a medium (say they) is the dawning and twilight betwixt light and darkness; to have one eye betwixt sight and blindness; such a medium is a disposition unto a disease, betwixt health and that disease. But this doubt would soon vanish, if men would heed the limitations that are usually given of it.  
The first is, that there is not such a medium of participation betwixt privative opposites, as there is in adversis, in contrary qualities; for here, each of the extremes is positive and affirmative, verè ens, whereas in privative opposites, one of them is more non ens than ens.  
A second you have in Scheibler in his Topics, c. 20. n. 72. having quoted a saying out of Plutarch, that non datur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he referreth, for limitation, unto what he had said concerning the intention and remission of privation, n. 43, 44, 45. There he layeth down this Canon, privatio non suscipit magis & minus. Privations have no degrees, are not intended nor remitted. But this he tells us is to be understood of not partial privations, such as those now instanced in: for such are privations only secundum quid; but of total privations, such as blindness, dumbness, deafness, death. These are uncapable of degrees, and so likewise there can be no mixture, or cohesion of them. The same for substance we have in Aquinas, 1.2 ae q. 18. a. 8. ad 1 'em. Duplex est privatio, quaedam quae consistit in privatum esse: & haec nihil relinquit, sed totum aufert: ut caecitas totaliter aufert visum, & tenebrae luncem, & mors vitam; & inter hanc privationem, & habitum oppositum non potest esse aliquod medium circa proprium susceptibile, Est autem alia privatio, quae consistit in privari, sicut aegritudo est privatio sanitatis, non quod tota sanitas sit sublata, sed quòd est quasi quaedam via ad totalem ablationem sanitatis, quae f●●●er mortem. Et ideò talis privatio, cùm aliquid relinquat, non semper est immediate cum opposito habitu. The sum and sense of this is, that privations and their habits are immediately opposite, if we speak of privations in facto esse, not in fieri. Now that Aquinas here speaks of medium participationis, is the Comment of Gregory de Valentia, Tom. 2 dis. 2. q. 13. punct. 5. This advertisement I thought fit to insert, for the prevention of unnecessary cavils: But yet I must confess, that medium participationis was put into the rule ex abundanti, and contributes nothing to the matter in hand: So that the Reader, if he please may leave it out; for the stress of the proof lies only upon this, viz. that betwixt things privatively opposite, there's no medium of abnegation in capable subjects. And this is affirmed so unanimously by all, as that I know not so much as one Dissentient.  
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of Books Printed for, and Sold by THO: ROBINSON.  
CHronicon Historiam Catholicam complectens ab exordio Mundi ad Nativitatem D. N. Jesus Christi, & exinde ad annum à Christo nato LXXI. Authore Ed. Simson, S. T. D. in Folio.  
An Answer to Mr. Hoard's Book, entitled God's Love to Mankind, by W. Twisse, D.D. in Fol.  

Books written by Dr. Prideaux.  
XXII Lectiones, Tredecim Orationes, & Sex Conciones. in Fol.  
Fasciculus Controversiarum Theol. 4ᵒ.  
Theologiae Scholasticae Syntagma Mnemonicum, & Conciliorum Synopsis. 4ᵒ.  
Manuductio ad Theol. Polemicam. 8ᵒ.  
An Easy and Compendious Introduction for reading all sorts of History; contrived in a more facile way than heretofore hath been published. 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.  
providential Alterations in their subserviency to Christ's Exaltation, opened 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.  
God's work in Founding Zion, and his people's 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 Fanati●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 Catechism, 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 published.  
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 & Lyceun, 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. Cross, Col. Linc. 4ᵒ.  
Fur pro Tribunali, Examen Dialog. cui inscribitur Fur Praedestinatus. Auth. Geo. Kendal. S. Th. D. 8o.  
Miscellanea, sive Meditat: & Orationes, etc. 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. Profess. Saviliani in Acad. Ox. Canicularia. Quibus access●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 Tragicomedy, by W. Cartwright. 4ᵒ.  
Pliny's Panegyric, A speech in Senate to the Emperor 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 Layman's Interpreting of Scriptures. 4ᵒ.  
The only way to preserve life. A Sermon on Amos 5.6. by Gr. Williams. D.D. 4ᵒ.  
King David's 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 Gradun 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.  
Susanna's 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 God's Grace discovered in the Kind's, Causes, Punishments, Symptoms, Cures, Differences, Cautions, and other Practical Improvements thereof. Proposed as a seasonable check to the wanton Libertinism of the Present Age. By Nich. Claget. 4o.  
A Treatise of Fruit-Trees, showing the manner of Grafting, Setting, Pruning, and ordering them in all respects, by Ramires: Austin. 4ᵒ.  
The Spiritual Use of an Orchard or Garden of Fruit-Trees, set forth in divers similitudes, according to Scripture and Experience, by Ramires: Austin. 4o.  
Observations on some part of Sir Francis Bacon's Natural History, as it concerns Fruit-trees, Fruits and Flowers, by Ramires: Austin. 4ᵒ.  
The History of the Propagation of Vegetables by the concurrence of Art and Nature: Showing the several ways 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 complete Concordance of the English Bible, by Rob. Wickens. 8o.  
Immortality of Humane Souls asserted, in Answer to a Tract entitled, Man's 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 Practical Divinity; in two Parts. 4o.  
Doctor Hammonds 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or a greater Ardency in Christ's love of God at one time than another, proved to be Irreconcilable with his Fullness of Habitual Grace, the perpetual Happiness, and the Impeccability of his soul. 4o.  
Saintship no ground of Sovereignty, 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 Decades of Sermons preached to the University at St. Mary's Church in Oxon: By Henry Wilkinson, D.D. Principal of Magdalen Hall, Oxon. 4ᵒ.