ΕΚΤΕΝΕ'ΣΤΕΡΟΝ.  
OR The Degrees of Ardency IN CHRISTS PRAYER Reconciled with His fullness OF HABITUAL GRACE.  
In Reply to the Author of a Book, entitled, A mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical.  
By H. HAMMOND. D. D.  
LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in ivy-lane. 1656.   

The Degrees of ardency in Christ's Prayer, &c.  
§. 1. I Was very willing to harken to the seasonable advice of many, and to wholly withdraw myself à foro contentioso, to some more pleasing& profitable employment; but discerning it to be the desire of the Author of the Book, entitled, A mixture of Scholastical and Practical Divinity, that I should reply to his examination of one passage of mine against Mr. Cawdrey, I shall make no scruple immediately to obey him, not only because it may be done in very few words, but especially because the doctrine, which he affixeth to me, seems( and not without some reason) to be contrary to the truth of Scripture, which I am to look on with all reverend submission and acquiesce in, with captivation of understanding, and so not assert any thing from my own conceptions, which is but seemingly contrary to it.  
2. The proposition which he affixes to me, is 
Of the fullness of Christ. p. 258.  this; That Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees, and that he refutes, as being contrary to that point( a truth of Scripture) which he had in hand, viz. The dwelling of all fullness of habitual grace in Christ.  
3. By this I suppose I may conclude his meaning to bee, that I have affirmed Christs love of God( meaning thereby that habitual grace of divine Charity) to have been capable of further degrees, so as that capacity of further degrees, is the denial of all fullness of that habitual grace already in him.  
4. And truly, had I thus expressed myself, or let fall any words, which might have been thus interpretable, I aclowledge I had been very injurious not onely to the verity of God, but also to my own conceptions, and even to the cause which I had in hand, which had not been supported, but betrayed by any such apprehension of the imperfection of Christs habitual graces.  
5. This I could easily show, and withall how cautiously and expressly it was fore-stall'd by me; But to the matter in hand, it is sufficient, that I profess I never thought it; but deem it a contrariety to express words of Scripture in any man who shall think it, and in short, that I never gave occasion to any man to believe it my opinion, having never said it in those words which he sets up to refute in me, never in any other that may be reasonably interpretable to that sense.  
6. First, I said it not in those words, which he undertakes to refute; These are p. 258. of his Book thus set down by him.  This point may serve for confutation of a passage in Dr. H. against Mr. C. to wit, That Christs love of God was capable of farther degrees.] 
7. These words I never said, nor indeed are they to be found in the Passage, which he sets down from me, and whereon he grounds them; which, saith he, is this:  Dr. H. p. 222. In the next place he passeth to the enforcement of my argument, from what we red concerning Christ himself, that he was more intense in Prayer at one time than another, when yet the lower degree was sure no sin, and prepares to make answer to it. viz. That Christ was above the Law, and did more then the Law required, but men shall short by many degrees of what is required. But sure this answer is nothing to the matter now in hand, for the evidencing of which, that example of Christ was brought by me, viz. That sincere Love is capable of degrees. This was first shewed in several men, and in the same man at several times, in the several ranks of Angels, and at last in Christ himself, more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another. 
8. Here the Reader finds not the words [ Christs love of God is capable of further degrees] and when by deduction he endeavours to conclude them from these words, his conclusion falls short in one word viz.[ further] and 'tis but this,  
That the example of Christ will never prove D. H. his conclusion, unless it infer, that Christs love of God was capable of degrees.]  
9. This is but a slight charge indeed, yet may be worthy to be taken notice of in the entrance( though the principal weight of my answer be not laid on it) and suggest this seasonable advertisement, that he which undertakes to refute any saying of another, must oblige himself to an exact recital of it to a word, and syllable; Otherwise he may himself become the onely Author of the Proposition, which he refutes.  
10. The difference is no more than by the addition of the word [ further.] But that addition may possibly beget in the Readers understanding, a very considerable difference.  
11. For this proposition [ Christs love of God was capable of further degrees] is readily interpretable to this dangerous sense, that Christs love of God was not full, but so far imperfect, as to be capable of some further degrees than yet it had; And thus sure the Author I have now before me, acknowledges to have understood the words, and accordingly proposeth to refute them from the consideration of the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ, which he could not do, unless he deemed them a prejudice to it.  
12. But those other words, which though he finds not in my pape●s, he yet not illogically infers from them [ that Christs love of God was capable of degrees, more intense at one time than at another] are not so liable to be thus interpnted, but onely import that Christs love of God had in its latitude or amplitude several degrees, one differing from another. See magis& minus, all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect love of God, which was always in Christ so full, and so perfect, as not to want, and so not to be capable of further degrees.  
13. The Matter is clear; The degrees of which Christs love of God is capable, are by me thus expressed, that his love was more intense at one time than at another; but still the higher of those degrees of crossness, was as truly acknowledged to be in Christs love, at some time, viz. in his agony, as the lower was at another, and so all the degrees, which are supposed to be mentioned of his love, are also supposed, and expressly affirmed to have been in him at some time or other; whereas a supposed capacity of further degrees, seems at least( and so is resolved by that Author) to infer, that these degrees were not in Christ( the direct contradictory to the former Proposition) and so that they were wanting in him,& the but seeming asserting of that want is justly censured, as prejudicial to Christs fullness. Here then was one misadventure in his proceeding.  
14. But this is but the proaemial part of my Reply, there is another more material branch of it still behind, which may yet seem necessary to be added, viz. to mind him of( what he well knows) the distinction between habits and acts of virtues, or graces; and that love the Genus doth equally comprehend both these species, and that his discourse of all fullness belonging to the habitual grace of Christ, I speak distinctly of another matter, viz. of the degrees of that grace discernible in the several acts of it.  
15. This distinction I thought legible enough before, both in the Tract of Will-worship, and in the Answer to Mr. Caw.  
16. In the former the 
p. 259.  Refuter confesseth to find it, reciting these words of mine, It is possible for the same person constantly to love God above all, and yet to have higher expressions of that love at one time than another. Where the expressions at one time, and at another, must needs refer to the several acts of the same, all-full habitual love. Onely I guess not what temptation he had to choose that expression, which he there makes use of, viz.  
[ That there D. H. minceth the matter, and speaketh more cautelously] adding [ that what he there saith is nothing to the matter now in hand]  
Whereas 1. those of Will-worship being the First papers written on that subject, are sure very pertinent to ascertain him of the meaning of the latter, written in defence of them; and secondly the early cautelous speaking there, might have made further later caution unnecessary: and 3ly, I could not be said to mince( which to vulgar ears signifies to retract in some degree what I had said before,) and again, speak more cautiously, when that was the first time of my speaking of it.  
17. Mean-while it is manifest, and his own confession, that there these were my words, and those so cautious, that this sense of the words which he undertakes to refute, could not be affixed on them. And this I should have thought sufficient to have preserved my innocence, and forstalled his Use of Confutation.  
18. But the answer to Mr. C. which occasioned it was, I think, as cautious also, 1. In the words recited by the Refuter, viz. that Christ himself was more ardent in one act of prayer then in another. 2. In the words following in that answer, but not recited by him, viz. that the sincerity of this or that virtue expressed in this or that performance, is it we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees; where the [ this or that performance] are certainly Acts of the virtue, consisting in a latitude and the having degrees( viz in that latitude) no way implies him that hath that virtue in that latitude( viz. Christ) to want at present; and in that sense to be capable of farther degrees.  
19. I am willing to look as jealously as I can on any passage of my own, which falls under any mans censure; and therefore finding nothing in the words set down by him as the ground of the Refutation) which is any way capable of it, I have reviewed the whole section, and weighed every period, as suspiciously as I could; to observe whether I could draw or wrest that consequence from any other passage, not recited by him.  
20. And I find none in any degree liable, except it should be this in the 
p. 221. n. 1.  beginning of the Sect. Where setting down the argument, as it lay in the Tr. of Will-wor. I say 'tis possible for the same person which so loves God( i.e. with all the heart) to love him, and express that love more intensely at one time than another, as appeared by the example of Christ.  
21. If this be thought capable of misapprehension, by reason of the[ and] disjoining love from the expressions of it, and so the expressions belonging to the acts, the love be deemed to denote the habitual love; I must onely say, that this is a misapprehension, for that by loving with all the heart, in the first place, I certainly meant the sincere habit of Love, by love in the latter place, the inward acts of love, and by the expressions of love, the outward expressions of those inward acts, and of those acts onely I speak, and of those expressions, when I say they are more intense at one time then another.  
22. The word love, as I said, is a genus, equally comprehending the two species, habitual and actual love, and equally applicable to either of the species, to the acts as well as habit of love. And so when I say love is capable of degrees, the meaning is clear, The generical word love restrained to the later species, i.e. considered in respect of the acts of love, gradually differenced one from the other, is that respect, capable of degrees, both inwardly and in outward expressions, that act of love, that poured out, and expressed itself in the more ardent prayer, was a more intense act of love, then another act of the same habitual love, which did not so ardently express itself.  
23. I shall explain this by the Refuters own Confession. The death of Christ, 
p. 259.  saith he, was an higher expression of Christs love of us, then his poverty, hunger, or thirst. To this I subjoin that such as the expression was, such was the act of inward love, of which that was an expression, it being certain that each of these expressions had an act of internal love, of which they were so many proportionably different expressions; And from hence I suppose it unavoidably consequent, that that act of internal love, expressed by his dying for us, was superior to those former acts, which onely expressed themselves in his poverty, and so the same person that loved sincerely, did also love, and express that love more intensely at one time then at another, which was the very thing I had said in another instance. But this I have added ex abundanti more then the Refuters discourse required of me.  
24. It now onely remaines, that I consider whether this Refuter have in the process of his discourse added any thing, wherein I may be any whit concerned.  
25. And 1. saith he, the falsehood of such an assertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed, the absolute fullness of Christs grace, which by the general consent of the Fathers and School-men was such, as that it excluded all intensive growth.  
26. But to this the reply will bee easily foreseen, from the premises, that as the point by him handled and confirmed was distinctly the all-fulness of habitual grace in Christ, so his proofs of it by the consent of Fathers and School-men belong still to that fullness of habitual grace.  
27. Witness one for all, Aquinas Ser. 3. qu. 7. art. 12. ad secundum, licet virtus divina posset facere aliquid ma●us& melius quàm sit habitualis gratia Christi, non tamen— though the divine power may make somewhat greater and better, than is the habitual grace of Christ, yet— so 'tis plain he speaks of the fullness of the habitual grace. And ad tertium. In sapientia& gratia aliquis proficere potest dupliciter; uno modo secundàm ipsos habitus sapientiae& gratiae augmentatos,& sic Christus in eis non proficiebat. Alio modo secundùm effectus, in quantum aliquis sapient or a& virtuosiora opera facit,& sic Christus proficieb at sapientia& gratiâ, sicut& aetate, quia secundùm processum aetatis perfectior a opera faciebat,— et in his quae sunt ad Deum, et in his quae sunt ad homines. One may increase in wisdom and grace two ways, one way according to the habits of them increased, and so Christ increased not; another way, according to the effects; when any doth more wise and virtuous works; and so Christ increased in wisdom and grace, as he did in age, because according to the process of his age, he did more perfect works, and that both in things belonging to God, and men also.  
28. And thus are the Schoolmen understood by the Refuter himself, in his producing their testimonies, as appears by the express words[ habitual grace p. 260. lin. penult. and holiness, and the Image of God in him] p. 261. lin. 13. And so 'tis most clear, their consent belongs not, even in his own opinion, to the matter I had, and have in hand, no way denying but asserting a capacity of degrees among the acts of Christs love of God, and the expressions of it.  
29. Secondly, he will hear the Doctors objection, and con●sider of what weight it is.  
Objection? against what? against the fullness of habitual grace in Christ? sure never any was by me urged against it. And he cannot now think there was. The degrees of intenseness observable in the several acts of Christs love, his praying more ardently at one time then another, was all that I concluded from that text, Luke 22.44. and that is nothing to his habitual love.  
30. But even to this he is pleased to frame answers( though I hope his doctrine of the fullness of Christs habitual grace be no way concerned in it) and to these I shall briefly attend him, as my last stage in this no very long voyage.  
31. And 1. saith he, the vulgar translation renders {αβγδ}, prolixius; and if this version bee good, then there is no place for the Doctors objection.  
But though I seek no advantage by that vulgar reading, yet thinking it a duty of reverence to that version, to take leave civilly, whensoever I depart from it( wherein I shall have the suffrage of Protestants as learned in both the Languages 
Paulus Fagius, Praf. in Vers. Chal. Paraph. in Pentat.  Hebrew and 
Joh. Boys Eliens. yet, Interpr. cum Beza— collat.  Greek, as any) and that I may to the utmost observe the Refuters steps, I shall not utterly reject it.  
32. 'tis certain {αβγδ} doth primarily signify extension, and that properly belongs to length, and so the comparative {αβγδ} to a greater degree of that length. And if it bee granted, that it so signify here, there will yet be place equally for my conclusion.  
33. For in every act of Prayer, be it but the shortest ejaculation, sent out by Christ, I suppose( and my Refuter must not doubt of it) there was some degree of ardency or intention; And then sure according to the multiplying of those acts, lengthening that prayer, there must still in Christ( I say not in every one of us) be a proportionable multiplication of those degrees, and so parallel to a greater length; a greater intention.  
34. This is clear, and I need not add( what else I might) that the very multiplication of more acts of any virtue, supposing it equally sincere in the habit( and such is the length of Prayer, when it is in Christ) is more valuable in the sight of God( and that argues it more excellent) than the smaller number of those acts would be, and proportionably more abundantly rewarded by him, who rewardeth every man not onely according to the sincerity of his heart, but also secundùm opera, according to the multiplied acts or works, the more abundant labour proceeding from this sincerity. And so that will suffice for his first Answer.  
35. But then 2. Saith he, suppose we stick unto our own translation, yet the place may fairly be so interpnted, as that it may no ways advantage the purpose of the Doctor. For {αβγδ}, more earnestly, may be considered in reference unto either the object unto whom he prayed, God; or the matter, against which he prayed, the evils with which he conflicted in his agony.  
1. Then, saith he, he did not in his agony pray more earnestly then at other times, if we consider his prayer in reference unto the object, unto whom it was, God. The Religion, and inward worship of his prayer, was for degrees always alike equal. His trust and dependence upon God, love of zeal and devotion towards God, from which all his prayers flowed, were not at one time more intense then at another.  
But now 2. He prayed more earnestly in his agony then at other times, in regard of the matter, against which he prayed, the evils which he encountered with, which if they were not greater, then those that he deprecated in the former prayer, v. 42. yet at least they made a greater impression upon his human nature; for they put him into a bloody sweat. Being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground.  
36. These are the words of his second answer, and they are in the second part, the very distinct confession of all that I pretend in this matter( and therefore I need not make any reflections on the first part of them) For whatsoever, or how great soever the occasion of the increase of his intention was( which I am willing to believe proportionable to the degree of the intention, a very weighty occasion that thus inflamed his ardency) yet still, 'tis confessed, that on this occasion, he now prayed more earnestly then at other times, that which now approached made a greater impression on his human nature; which what is it but a proof of the point by me asserted, that Christ himself was more ardent in one act of prayer( this in his agony) then in another.  
37. As for the greatness of the occasion, so confessed ly great as to cast him into that prodigious sweat, falling {αβγδ}, as it were drops of blood, that may testify, but it cannot prejudge the ardency, which was occasioned thereby.  
38. Twas not in Christ( he will easily suppose with me) as it is oft discernible in many of us, that those which have really no sincerity of love or zeal to God, can yet like the Mariners in the tempest, by some pressing fear or danger be awaked to but formal, and, be they never so loud, but hypocritically zealous prayers.  
39. The ardency in Christ was sincere ardency, accompanied with acts of love and trust of the same temper, and the heightening it {αβγδ}, was an addition of degrees to that act of ardency, and so of prayer, and proportionably of love and trust in God, above either what there was, or, what there was occasion for, at other times.  
40. Of this I shall hope it is possible to find some instances among men( of whose graces it can be no blasphemy to affirm, that they are capable of degrees) suppose we a sincerely pious man, a true lover of God, and no despiser of his poor persecuted Church, and suppose we, as it is very excusable, that at some time the seas roar, the tempest be at its hight, and the waves beat violently upon this frail brittle vessel, may it not be a season for that pious mans ardency to receive some growth? for his zeal to be emulous of those waves, and poure itself out more profusely at such, then at a calmer season? I hope there be some at this time among us, in whom this point is really exemplified, if it be not, it is an effect of want, not fullness of love. But I need not thus to enlarge; It is not by this Refuter denied of the person of Christ, and that is my entire {αβγδ} in reference either to Mr. C. or to him, the utmost that I undertook to demonstrate then, or to justify now.  
41. And so I shut up this hasty paper, hoping that he which invited, and promised it a welcome, in case it were given him in a fair and Scholastical way, having nothing to accuse in it, as to the first Epithet, will abate somewhat in reference to the second, and allow it a friendly, though being unqualified, it pretend not to a more hospitable reception.  
The end.   

᾿ΕΥΣΧΗΜΌΝΩΣ ΚΑῚ ΚΑΤᾺ ΤΆΞΙΝ: OR, THE GROUNDS OF UNIFORMITY From 1 Cor. 14.40.  
Vindicated from Mr JEANES'S exceptions to One passage in the View of the DIRECTORY.  
By H. Hammond D. D.  
LONDON, Printed by J. G. for Richard Royston, at the Angel in Ivy-Lane, M.DC.LVII.   
1 Cor. 14.40. {αβγδ}. 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 Gods service, and particularly respecting my rendering of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done {αβγδ}.  
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 implied in {αβγδ} decently( custom being the onely rule of decency &c.) and of the latter, because the words do literally import this, {αβγδ}, 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 onely that it is implied; It cannot be denied but that decency doth imply such customs, the omission of which necessary infer indecency, but that the omission of such ceremonies as ours, doth infer undecency, the Doctor& all his party can never make good; What undecency can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of baptism without the across, as also in public prayers and preaching without a Surplice? But of this see farther in Ames in the places but now quoted; The Doctor may perhaps look upon him as an inconsiderable adversary. But we shall think his Arguments considerable, 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 onely rule of decency.  
This proposition, though very strange, is prooflesse; and therefore we might as well reject it, as the Doctor dictates it. But I shall add a confutation of it from these following arguments.  
1. If custom be the onely rule of decency, then 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, and that infallible.  
2. Nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto the onely rule of decency. But divers things are undecent, which yet can pled custom: and this is so evident, as that I will not so much undervalue the Doctors judgement as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent: But yet it is very possible that many customs should be undecent, and therefore I shall conclude that custom is not the onely 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 onely 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 onely rule of decency] which he confutes by three arguments.  
5. 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?  
6. To make short, and prevent all possibility of his, or any mans farther mistaking my words, I shall hasten to tell him the full of my meaning in that passage, that[ {αβγδ} decently] implies [ according to custom] viz. that in such things as these, of which then I spake, gestures, habits and the like circumstances of Gods public service, wherein the Apostle prescribes care of decency, 'tis necessary to observe the customs of the place wherein we live: This I then thought sufficiently explicated by exemplifying in mens wearing long hair, which the Apostle proved indecent by its being against {αβγδ} i. e. saith Suidas, {αβγδ}, a custom of some continuance in that place( which yet in women there, and in men in other places, where that custom prevailed not, had nothing indecent in it.)  
7. But this exemplification of my meaning he thought fit to conceal from the Reader, and supply that vacuity onely with an &c. yet reciting at length, to a word, what was immediately before, and after it. His design in so doing I judge not, but shall endeavour to undeceive the Reader for the future, by farther enlarging on it.  
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 Turkes 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 still it is among us. Nay it was once among some hethens( that worshipped Mercury) in act of the highest reverence, even of adoration, to throw stones at their God, among others to cut themselves with launces, when they were a praying to him. And it can be no news to Mr J. that these customs were not observed by other countreys; the Jews that threw stones at Christ, and the Daemoniack that cut himself with them, were neither of them interpretable to worship him.  
9. This therefore was no dark, but visible foundation of what I said; In affigning any rite or ceremony for the service of God, decency, saith the Apostle, was to be observed, the onely rule to judge of that, is, say I, to consider the customs of that particular place, of which we consult. Where bowing 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 on that mistake, but the standing custom 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.  
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 denied but that decency doth imply such customs, the omission of which necessary 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 necessary infers indecency; But what are they? why, such as the law of( at least Lapst) nature prescribes, covering of nakedness, and the like; of which tis evident among all that have not learnt of Carneades industriously to rase out all natural measures of honest and dishonest, that the omission of them infers indecency, yea and necessary 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 customs 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 necessary 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 necessary and absolutely, but onely dependently on that law, and conditionally, infer indecency; so in like manner the Rule holds not in those things, whose decency is introduced onely by custom, for that, as Mr. I. 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.  
14. And so we see the sum of Mr I. 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 Dr. 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 I. in his interpretation of {αβγδ}, or notion of decency.  
15. That this is indeed his meaning( 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 onely that those things which are instituted by God, be used in that manner which is agreeable to the dignity of them, 2. that as order so decency belongs to civil offices, as well as sacred things, in which indecorum est vitium oppositum debito illi modo, qui requiritur ad eorum justum finem et 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 itself supposed by him to be instituted by men, then must he aclowledge human 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.  
16. Now this being thus far explained, it is time to close with Mr I. and mind him, what he cannot but know, that the decency which I said implied custom, is certainly another thing from natural decency, and hath place onely in those things, the omitting of which doth not necessary infer indecency. That omission which necessary infers indecency, infers it in all that eever did, or shall omit it; we know in logic, that no propesition is necessary, which is not {αβγδ}, true in the whole sp●cies, of all, and every one, and I leave it to his judgement, whether he think the Dr. and his party( i.e. Praelatists, I suppose,) do conceive, that Adam( whether in, or out of paradise) Noah in, or out of the ark, &c. were obliged to pray in Surplices, under pain of indecency? And so( in his other instance) that John Baptist, that Christ, or( because the text saith that he baptized not but his disciples) that those disciples, even before the death of Christ, might not baptize any without the fign of the cross, but under the same penalty?  
17. Nay tis already past question, that Mr I. in his first argument against my dictate( as he calls it) saith, that the light and law of Nature is also a rule of decency, and so not onely custom: And if so, then custom is a rule of decency also, and not onely 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 necessary infer indecency. And of such decency alone it is evident that I spake, on the head of Uniformity,( and could not speak sense, if I spake, 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 spake,( though not of that, of which it is certain I spake not) still custom is the onely rule of decency.  
This therefore I hope may serve in answer to his first charge, that of my timidity, that I dared not say, what I said not; together with a view of his concession of the truth of what I did say, and the wary limitation of that concession.  
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 quiter 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.  
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 or such a ceremony was an usual indication, and expression of that reverence, which being due from all inferiors to their superious, is much more due from all Christians to God.  
20. In these it is certain, custom is the rule and the onely rule of decency; Neither Nature nor Gods Law obliges all man kind to this, or that expression of reverence. Several Nations have their several manners of doing it; Onely 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 polluted bread upon his altar, and of sacrificing the lame& the sick, Mal. 1.8. is a confirmation of that, Offer it now, saith God, unto thy governor, 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, then I must, I suppose, regularly conclude from custom, the one 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.  
22. This I did not there apply to the across 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§. 28. the across expressly name, and the Surplice implied 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 those grounds, whereon they are known 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.]  
23. And yet if Mr J. shall now desire to know what the grounds of those two Ecclesiastical rites are, which alone he is pleased to name, on persuasion, I suppose, that they were as fit, if not fitter then any others, for the disproving my position, of [ custom being the onely rule of decency] I shal 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.  
25. 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 
Signa crucis actio Christiana describitur. Aug. de Doctr. Chr. l. 4.  symbol or ensign, and every man that is enrolled in the Christian Militia, is by him that inrols him, signed with it; and this practise being thus founded, and received in the Church, Saint Augustines words are worth remembering, and cannot be denied to have truth in them, 
In Joh. Tr. 118.  Signum crucis nisi adhibeatur, sieve frontibus credentium, sieve ipsi aquae quâ regeneramur &c. nihil ritè perficitur, unless the sign of the across be used either to the foreheads of the believers( who are Baptized) 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 hody tanquam in post signanduses, 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 across, as the Israelites on their door-posts, and so must all Christians. In the forehead particularly 
Tom. 10 p. 289. B.  in front figat ubi seeds pudoris) because the seat of shane is there, which we render in token that the baptized shall rot be ashamed—.  
26. Secondly, the usage of this ceremony of signing with the across, was we also know, frequent in the Church( while the gifts of healing continued) in 
See Aug. de Civ. D●i l. 22. c. 8.  curing diseases, and casting out Devils, so that Athanasius frequently affirms of it, 
De Incarnat. Tom. 1. pag. 84. So pag. 101. D. {αβγδ}. And pag. 102.6. {αβγδ}. And contr. Arian. Or. 1. pag. 285. A. {αβγδ}. And present 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.  {αβγδ}, by the sign of the across all magic and witchcraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waste and empty.  
27. And then baptism being the exorcizing of Devils( the ancient Catechists we know were called exorcists) the rescuing a person from the power of Satan into Gods sonship and family, what can be more proper, or agreeable, or exactly symbolical, then the use of this in baptism, according to that of Tertullian, de Resurr. Carn. Caro signatur ut anima mu●iatur, the flesh or body is signed, that the soul may be defended or fortified.  
28. And if instead of the 
Ad omnem progressum frontem crucis signaculo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. mill. c. 3.  frequent use of it among the ancients, even 
Vide Narrat. Hippolyti Apostolorum {αβγδ}, apud Pallad. Hist. Laus. pag. 1049. {αβγδ}.  before the cumbersome weight of ce emonies came in( {αβγδ}, saith the Author of the Quest. and Resp. ascribed to Justin Martyr, Qu. gin pag. 364. in time of prayer we sign those that have any need of it, those that are any way ill affencted) we in this our Church retain it onely in our solemn entrance into Christs camp, in token that we mean valiantly to fight under his banners, and in confidence that he that thus signed to Constantine victory from heaven( {αβγδ}, 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?  
29. 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 then what is thus customary in civil matters( viz: to difference persons and employments, yea and dayes by distinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogy undeniable, is as fitly and decently from thence derived to 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, {αβγδ} to {αβγδ}, 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 beside this of ours, Eastern as well as Western, for so many centuries together, be considered, it will be competently able to establish an Ecclesiastical cust me also, which, in things of this nature, were external ornaments, and formalities, is a more rational ground, and rule or measure of decency, then any Mr J.( or Amesius to boot) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking, and casting away those hands, which tied no harder a yoke than this upon their shoulders.  
30. In this case I believe( though not in the garments themselves) there is place for that decency, the omission of which necessary infers indecency, and for such order the breaking of which must soon end in {αβγδ}( which Mr I. saith, St. Paul opposes to {αβγδ}) viz: down right confusion.  
31. Having sa'd thus much ex abundanti, above what was incumbert on me, I shall flatter myself, that I may now spare any larger pains, in furvey of Amesius's arguments, which Mr J. is resolved to think considerable, and to speak very magnificently of them, as proving that the text is 1 Cor. xiv. 40. rightly understood doth not onely not authorize any human institution of ceremonies, but on the contrary plainly condemns them, and this, saith he, was so well managed by him, that he hath quiter beaten out of the field Bishop Morton and his second, Dr J. burgess:  
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 necessary infers indecency, i.e. as hath been shewed, 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 eternal 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 buttond doublet, is absolutely unlawful by force of 1 Cor. xiv. 40.  
33. This being the bottom of those arguments of Amesius, I may safely tell Mr J. that they could no otherwise beat either Bishop Morton, or Dr J. burgess out of the field, than that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to; He that thinks there is nothing indifferent, nothing lawful, the omission of which is not sin, doth certainly use other dictonaries than we do; discerns no difference betwixt lawful, and necessary, and as the asserters of fatal 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 not 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 onely, 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 interpnted that which may or may not be done, to signify onely that which must be done, and may not be emitted) and not new reasons to confirm old paradexes.  
34. This argument of Amesius against things indifferent, that learned Bishop was well acquainted with, by his familiar conferences with Mr. Lapthorne a vehement disputer against ceremonies, and whom the Bishop thought fitter to refute by trifling instances, of unbuttoning, and buttoning his casseck; than by more serious attempts of conviction, i.e. in plain terms to despise and smile at, than to dread; and if Mr J. have really red 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.  
35. mean while, to the reproach of my great stupidity, I willingly aclowledge, 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 Gods worship. He that can maintain this consequence not onely to be true, but( as Mr J. affirms of him) 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.  
36. His third and last impression now remaines, wherein he undertakes to prove by 3. arguments that custom is not the onely 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§. concerning Uniformity, i.e. in things indifferent, gestures and other ceremonies in Gods 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 spake 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 onely custom was the rule of Decency.  
37. His second argument is wholly deceitful, and must be discovered to be so by reducing it to rules of art. 'tis by him variously formed into two several syllogisms. The first is this.  


Nothing can be undecent, which is agreeable to the onely rule of Decency.  
But divers things are undecent, which yet can pled custom.  
The conclusion now must be, Therefore custom is not the onely rule of decency.    
38. But this is no regular syllogism, 'tis in no mood or figure, nor readily reducible to any, and therefore twas his onely way to presume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.  
39. But he hath thought fit to vary this syllogism, and give it in other terms, and then one might hope it would be exactly formed. 'tis thus, 

It is impossible that the onely rule of decency should be undecent.  
But yet it is very possible that many customs should be indecent.  
Therefore he shall conclude that custom is not the onely 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 a granted truth, that Law is the onely rule of Justice, yet this I shall disprove by a syllogism exactly formed by Mr J. his model, Thus, 

It is impossible that the onely 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 onely rule of justice:    
41. To discover this deceit then, the syllogism which is now no syllogism must be somewhat better formed, 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 onely rule of decency.  
But custom is itself undecent.  
Therefore custom cannot be the onely 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 tis a false syllogism. And if the conclusion be particular, then it infers no more then 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,& 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 onely, or at all the rule of decency. And so still my proposition may stand good, which as it belonged not to natural decency, so much 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 Gods 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.  
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 customary, before it is decent in any kind;( knowing unquestionably that there is a natural decency) but that the decency of any ceremony in Gods service, wherein God and Nature have prescribed nothing particularly, must be regulated according to those measures, which the 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 onely rule, by which the decency of indifferent gestures, &c. 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 {αβγδ} decently.  
43. But there is yet a second charge behind against my rendering of {αβγδ}, according to appointment] which he hath managed in these words.  
44. As for the other part of the words, let all things be done in order, Ames in the place forementioned sheweth that order requireth not such ceremonies as ours, and he giveth this reason, because order requireth not the institution of any new thing but onely the right placing and disposing of things which are formerly instituted: and this he makes good from the notation of the word, from the definitions of order, which are given by Philosophers and Divines &c. from the context of the chapter, and from the usage of the word elsewhere. But the Doctor, that the words may give some countenance unto our ceremonies, adve●tureth upon a new interpretation of them.  
The words {αβγδ} ( saith he,) literally import according unto appointment, {αβγδ} sometimes signifies to appoint, as Mat. 28.16. Act. 22.10. and 28.23. And we may hereupon argue à conjugatis, that {αβγδ} 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 Dr. that the words {αβγδ} literally import according unto order, as order is taken strictly for the right placing or ranking of things one before, another after, and this we have confessed even by Dr John burgess in his rejoinder unto Ames p. 78. a book published by the special command of the late King. Mortover this sense is favoured by the coherence, for. v. 31. we have a particular instance of order in this acception of the word, ye may all prophesy one by one &c. and not all or many speak at once 2. We have the oppositeof 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 Dr hath a hard task to performs, 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 onely 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 for midable adversary, but it is onely love of the truth hath engaged me in so unequal an encounter, and therefore I hope the Dr 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 conclusion 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 {αβγδ} literally and properly signifies [ according to ordination or appointment] {αβγδ} signifies[ according to] not [ in] and {αβγδ} or {αβγδ} [ an ordinance or constitution] millions of times in authors, and {αβγδ} orderly, or in order] lying more consonant with {αβγδ}, no reason 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 Mr J. acknowledges, and so I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal, which was not, that it must necessary thus signify, but that this being the literal regular rendering of it, I had sufficient reason to render it thus.  
48. I proceed then to the second thing, that if what he pretends to be possible also, were indeed the onely possible, or( by way of supposition, but not concession) if {αβγδ}] 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 orderlynesse, and forbidding all confusion in ecclesiastical affairs, must by consequence be interpnted to command the instituting and observing uniformity of ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.  
49. First there is no possibility of worshipping God externally and publicly, without use of some ceremonies or circumstances of time, place, and gesture, &c. Secondly there is no possibility of order in a multitude, without uniformity in the same circumstances, Thirdly, 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. Fourthly the agreement one with another, if it be onely voluntary, and such, as by which none are obliged, no way secures the end; but if it be such an agreement, that every single person is obliged to observe, then still is that a law of that body, as of a council, &c. and as truly so, as the constitution of a single Praelate can be thought to be. And so the conclusion regularly follows, that to the preserving but of order, or orderlynesse in a Church, it is necessary, there be appointment, what shall by all be uniformly performed; confusion unavoidably coming in, where no certain rules are prescribed for Uniformity.  
50. What can be denved 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 {αβγδ} signifies appointment or ordination, yet still it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove, that this extends not onely to the customs and appointments of the apostolic Churches, but also to the Churches of succeeding ages. And my answer to this will conclude this whole debate.  
51. First then I aclowledge, that, it is not here necessary ordained by the Apostle, that all the Churches of God in 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 then secondly, when for many circumstances of Gods worship, there is no 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, &c. and yet the rule is given by them, that all shall be done according to appointment, and moreover in other places that obedience be paid to those superiors which watch over our souls; and when those rules are not given onely to the persons that then lived in the Church of Corinth, &c. but to all that should ever live in that, and all other Churches, it cannot 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 {αβγδ} 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 uniformly when they thus gave orders 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 us 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, and thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles, or whether we their obedient children, that are commanded to act {αβγδ} 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 {αβγδ}, whether regularly or according to appointment; but for the {αβγδ} in which they have made no rules, but left order to Titus, &c.( i.e. by parity of reason, to the Bishops in every island) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainly with perfect safety be exercised by them, and that necessary infers our obligation to yield obedience to their exercises of them.  
55. This is all the observance Mr J. seems to expect of me at this time, unless his intimation to all admirers of Mr. Hooker, 
p. 14 ●●.  that they should vindicate their great patron of Ceremonies, may pass for an admonition to me, who aclowledge myself a thankful adorer of Gods graces in that Godly learned man, and so exact a few lines more above the regular account.  
56. This will detain me no longer than whilst I mind the Reader that in a discourse of the benefits which we receive from Christ in the Sacrament, 
Eccl. Pol. l. 5. Sect. 55.  and otherwise, Mr Hooker undertakes to set down how Christ in his human nature is communicated to us, and so present with us; To this end 3. 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 human nature, can possibly be every where present, no nor the substance of the body of Christ, which neither hath nor can have any presence but onely local. 2. That this cannot be rendered possible either by the grace of union with 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 human nature with the Deity, which conjunction is extended as far as the Deity, the actual position being restrained and tied to a certain place, and 2. by cooperation with Deity, and that in all things.  
57. Now on this third head, 
p. 139. ( without reflecting on the two former, which assure us of the authors meaning in it) two passages Mr J. takes hold of, 
p. 140.  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 learned a pen.  
58. But I suppose there is no great skill in either of those learned faculties, required, to distinguish betwixt that which truly and properly is, and that which may in some sense, and after a sort, and in two respects onely( neither of which belong to the propriety of being) be well enough granted, and that with a [ peradventure] also, to have influence on all these.  
59. And what severity is this, to require of every learned man, that hath most largely refuted an adversary, to be so averse from all thoughts of peace and reconciliation with him, that he may not allow him to speak truth, or but perhaps to speak truth in a sort, and in some sense, and in two onely respects? all which are still more than intimations, that he thinks him to be absolutely ( and in simplicity and propriety of speaking) in a gross 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 spake you might hear an Angel, assuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare man can truly be an Angel, any 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 Mr J. think fit to leave his subject, and let loose 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 withall 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 onely assure him, that I have not so much of either, as to attend these his motions, nor any other lover or admirer of Mr Hooker, that I know of, and therefore beseech him contentedly to rest in this general return to his charge of that learned man, without expecting any more explicit or particular survey of it. And so much for Mr H. also.  
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 had been, to have proposed his exceptions in such a manner of 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.  
THE END.   

Errata in the first Reply to Mr Jeanes.  
Pag. 1. l. 2. deal to. p. 3. l. 4. r. change. l. 28. r. another, sec. magis. p. 6. l. 11, r. is in that. p. 10. l. 30. r. {αβγδ}.   

Errata in the second Reply to Mr Jeanes.  
Pag. 11. l. 1. r. known to stand. p. 13. l. 28. r. mecr external. p. 15. l. 6. r. Mr hind, and Mr Glapthorne two vehement disputers. p. 16. l. 23. r. measures.