Ektenesteron, or, The degrees of ardency in Christs prayer reconciled with his fulnesse of habitval grace in reply to the author of a book, intituled, A mixture of scholastical divinity with practical / by H. Hammond ...

Ektenesteron, or, The degrees of ardency in Christs prayer reconciled with his fulnesse of habitval grace in reply to the author of a book, intituled, A mixture of scholastical divinity with practical / by H. Hammond ...

Table of contents

[1]

Title page

The Degrees of ardency in Chriſt's Prayer, &c.

[2]

Title page

§

Errata in the firſt Reply to Mr Jeanes.

Errata in the ſecond Reply to Mr Jeanes.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

ΕΚΤΕΝΕ'ΣΤΕΡΟΝ. OR The Degrees of Ardency IN CHRISTS PRAYER Reconciled with His fulneſſe OF HABITƲAL GRACE.

In Reply to the Author of a Book, intituled, A mixture of Scholastical Divinity with Practical.

By H. HAMMOND. D. D.

LONDON, Printed for R. ROYSTON at the Angel in Ivie-lane. 1656.

The Degrees of ardency in Chriſt's Prayer, &c.

[Page]

[Page]

§. 1 I Was very willing to hearken to the ſeaſonable advice of many, and to wholly withdraw my ſelf à foro contentioſo, to ſome more pleaſing & profitable imployment; but diſcerning it to be the deſire of the Author of the Book, Intituled, 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 mee, ſeems (and not without ſome reaſon) to be contrary to the truth of Scripture, which I am to look on with all reverent 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.

section 2 The propoſition which he affixes to mee, isOf the fulneſs 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 fulneſs of habituall grace in Chriſt.

section 3 By this I ſuppoſe I may conclude his meaning to bee, that I have affirmed Chriſts love of God (meaning thereby that habituall grace of divine Charity) to have been capable of further degrees, ſo as that capacity of further degrees, is the denyall of all fulneſs of that habitual grace already in him.

section 4 And truly, had I thus expreſt my ſelf, or let fall any words, which might have been thus interpretable, I acknowledge 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.

[Page] section 5 This I could eaſily ſhew, and withall how cautiouſly and expreſly it was fore-ſtall'd by mee; But to the matter in hand, it is ſufficient, that I profeſſe I never thought it; but deem it a contrariety to expreſſe 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 mee, never in any other that may be reaſonably interpretable to that ſenſe.

section 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].

section 7 Theſe words I never ſaid, nor indeed are they to be found in the Paſſage, which he ſets down from mee, and whereon he grounds them; which, ſaith he, is this:

Dr. H. p. 222. In the next place he paſſeth to the inforcement of my argument, from what we read 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 fall 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 mee, viz. That ſincere Love is capable of degrees. This was firſt ſhewed in ſeverall men, and in the ſame man at ſeveral times, in the ſeverall rankes of Angels, and at laſt in Chriſt himſelf, more ardent in one act of Prayer than in another.

section 8 Here the Reader findes 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,

[Page] That the example of Chriſt will never prove D. H. his concluſion, unleſſe it inferre, that Chriſts love of God was capable of degrees.]

section 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 advertiſment, 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.

section 10 The difference is no more than by the addition of the word [further.] But that addition may poſſibly beger in the Readers underſtanding, a very conſiderable difference.

section 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 ful, but ſo farre imperfect, as to be capable of ſome further degrees than yet it had; And thus ſure the Author I have now before mee, 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 doe, unleſſe he deemed them a prejudice to it.

section 12 But thoſe other words, which though he findes not in my papers, he yet not illogically inferres 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 interpreted, but onely import that Christs love of God had in its latitude or amplitude ſeverall degrees, one differing from another. See magis & minus, all of them comprehended in that all-full perfect love of God, which was alwayes in Chriſt ſo full, and ſo perfect, as not to want, and ſo not to be capable of further degrees.

section 13 The Matter is cleare; The degrees of which Chriſts love of God is capable, are by me thus expreſt, that his love was more intenſe at one time than at another; but ſtill the higher of thoſe degrees of intenſneſs, was as truly acknowledged to be in Chriſts love, at ſome time, viz. in his agonie, as the lower was at [...]; and ſo all the degrees, which are ſuppoſed to be mentioned of [Page] his love, are alſo ſuppoſed, and expreſly 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 inferre, that theſe degrees were not in Chriſt (the direct contradictorie to the former Propoſition) and ſo that they were wanting in him, & the but ſeeming aſſerting of that want is juſtly cenſured, as prejudiciall to Christs fulneſs. Here then was one miſadventure in his proceeding.

section 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 neceſſarie to be added, viz. to mind him of (what he well knowes) 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 fulneſs belonging to the habitual grace of Christ, I ſpeak diſtinctly of another matter, viz. of the degrees of that grace diſcernable in the ſeveral acts of it.

section 15 This diſtinction I thought legible enough before, both in the Tract of Will-worſhip, and in the Anſwer to Mr. Caw.

section 16 In the former the p. 259. Refuter confeſſeth to finde 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 referre to the ſeverall acts of the ſame, all-full habituall love. Onely I gueſſe 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 defenſe 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 eares 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.

[Page] section 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 affixt on them. And this I ſhould have thought ſufficient to have preſerved my innocence, and forſtalled his Ʋſe of Confutation.

section 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 expreſt in this or that performance, is it we ſpeake 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.

section 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.

section 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 expreſſe that love more intenſely at one time than another, as appeared by the example of Chriſt.

section 21 If this be thought capable of miſapprehenſion, by reaſon of the [and] disjoyning 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 [Page] 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.

section 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 cleare, 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 expreſt it ſelf 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 expreſſe it ſelf.

section 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 ſubjoyn 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, expreſt by his dying for us, was ſuperior to thoſe former acts, which onely expreſt themſelves in his poverty, and ſo the ſame perſon that loved ſincerely, did alſo love, and expreſſe that love more intenſly 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.

section 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 concern'd.

section 25 And 1. ſaith he, the falſehood of ſuch an aſſertion is evident from the point there handled and confirmed, the abſolute fulneſſe of Chriſts grace, which by the general conſent of the[Page]Fathers and School-men was ſuch, as that it excluded all intenſive growth.

section 26 But to this the reply will bee eaſily foreſeen, from the premiſſes, that as the point by him handled and confirmed was diſtinctly the all-fulneſs of habituall grace in Christ, ſo his proofs of it by the conſent of Fathers and School-men belong ſtill to that fulneſs of habitual grace.

section 27 Witneſs one for all, Aquin. is Ser. 3. qu. 7. art. 12. ad ſecundum, licet virtus divina poſſit facere aliquid majus & 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 fulneſs of the habituall grace. And ad tertium. In ſapientia & gratia aliquis proficere poteſt dupliciter; uno modo ſecundùm ipſos habitus ſapientiae & gratiae augmentatos, & ſic Chriſtus in eis non proficiebat. Alio modo ſecundùm effectus, in quantum aliquis ſapientora & virtuoſiora opera facit, & ſic Chriſtus proficiebat ſapientia & gratiâ, ſicut & atate, quia ſecundùm proceſſum aetatis perfectiora opera faciebat,—et in his quae ſunt ad Deum, et in his quae ſunt ad homines. One may increaſe in wiſdome and grace two waies, 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 workes; and ſo Chriſt increaſed in Wiſedome and grace, as he did in age, becauſe according to the proceſſe of his age, he did more perfect workes, and that both in things belonging to God, and men alſo.

section 28 And thus are the Schoolmen underſtood by the Refuter himſelf, in his producing their testimonies, as appeares by the expreſſe words [habitual grace p. 260. lin. penult. and holineſs, and the Image of God in him] p. 261. lin. 13. And ſo 'tis moſt cleare, 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.

section 29 Secondly, he will heare the Doctors objection, and conſider of what weight it is.

Objection? againſt what? againſt the fulneſs of habitual grace▪[Page]in Chriſt? ſure never any was by me urged againſtit. 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 habituall love.

section 30 But even to this he is pleaſed to frame anſwers (though I hope his doctrine of the fulneſſe of Christs habitual grace be no way concern'd in it) and to theſe I ſhall briefly attend him, as my laſt ſtage in this no very long voyage.

section 31 And 1. ſaith he, the vulgar tranſlation renders [...], 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 andJoh. Boys Eliens. vet, Interpr. cum. Beza-collat. Greek, as any) and that I may to the utmoſt obſerve the Refuters ſteps, I ſhall not utterly reject it.

section 32'Tis certain [...] doth primarily ſignifie extenſion, and that properly belongs to length, and ſo the comparative [...] to a greater degree of that length. And if it bee granted, that it ſo ſignifie here, there will yet be place equally for my concluſion.

section 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 intenſion; 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 intenſion.

section 34 This is cleare, and I need not adde (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 [Page] 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 workes, the more abundant labour proceeding from this ſincerity. And ſo that will ſuffice for his firſt Anſwer.

section 35 But then 2. Saith he, ſuppoſe we ſtick unto our own tranſlation, yet the place may fairly be ſo interpreted, as that it may no wayes advantage the purpoſe of the Doctor. For [...], 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 alwayes alike equal. His truſt and dependance upon God, love of zeal and devotion towards God, from which all his prayers ſlowed, 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 encountred 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 humane 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.

section 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 intenſion was (which I am willing to beleeve proportionable to the degree of the intenſion, a very weighty occaſion that thus inflamed his ardency) yet ſtill, 'tis confeſt, that on this occaſion, he now prayed more earneſtly then at other times, that which now approached made a greater impreſſion on his humane 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 agonie) then in another.

[Page] section 37 As for the greatneſſe of the occaſion, ſo confeſt [...]ly great as to caſt him into that prodigious ſweat, falling [...], as it were drops of blood, that may teſtifie, but it cannot prejudge the ardency, which was occaſioned thereby.

section 38 Twas not in Chriſt (he will eaſily ſuppoſe with me) as it is oft diſcernable 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.

section 39 The ardency in Chriſt was ſincere ardency, accompanied with acts of love and truſt of the ſame temper; and the heightning it [...], 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.

section 40 Of this I ſhall hope it is poſſible to finde ſome inſtances among men (of whoſe graces it can be no blaſphemie 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 ſuppoſeable, that at ſome time the ſeas roar, the tempeſt be at its hight, and the waves boat violently upon this frailbrittle 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 it ſelf 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 fulneſs of love. But I need not thus to inlarge; It is not by this Refuter denied of the perſon of Chriſt, and that is my intyre [...] in reference either to Mr. C. or to him, the utmoſt that I undertook to demonſtrate then, or to juſtifie now.

section 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.

§

§

[Page]

ἘΥΣΧΗΜΌΝΩΣ 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.

§

[Page]

[Page]

1 Cor. 14. 40.‘ [...]. Decently, and according to appointment.’

section 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 concern'd, relating to ſome words of mine in the view of the Directory pag. 19. on the head of Ʋniformity in Gods ſervice, and particularly reſpecting my rendring of the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done [...].

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

section 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 cuſtomes, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily infer [Page]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 Baptiſme without the Croſs, as alſo in publick 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 cuſtome is the onely rule of decency.

This prop [...]ſition, 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 cuſtome be the onely rule of decency, then nothing elſe can be a rule thereof beſides cuſtome; but this is falſe, for the light and law of nature, is alſo a rule thereof, and that infallible.

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

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

section 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 Croſſe in Baptiſme, and the Surplice in publick prayer[Page]and preaching; 2. by reference to Ames, and reſolving to think his arguments conſiderable, till a ſatisfactory anſwer be given them. And his third charge is, my uſing an unſufficient proof to prove my interpretation, viz. this becauſe cuſtome is the onely rule of decency] which he confutes by three argument.

section 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, perſpicucuſly) the full of what I meant, but that it was no way incumbent on me, to ſay either what I did not mean, or what Mr J. or any other ſhould be juſtly able to charge of want of truth in the leaſt degree. And 2. if what I ſaid cannot, as he confeſſes, be denied, to have truth in it in one ſenſe, I demand why muſt it be a not daring (which is wont to ſignifie timidity, or cowardice) that I affirmed it not in another ſenſe, wherein be doth not conſent to it?

section 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 [ [...] decently] implies [according to cuſtome] viz. that in ſuch things as theſe, of which then I ſpake, geſtures, habites and the like circumſtances of Gods publick ſervice, wherein the Apoſtle preſcribes care of decency, 'tis neceſſary to obſerve the cuſtomes 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 [...] i. e. ſaith Suidas, [...], a cuſtome of ſome continuance in that place (which yet in women there, and in men in other places, where that cuſtome prevail'd not, had nothing indecent in it.)

section 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 inlarging on it.

section 8 All people, I think, in the world have ſome outward ſignifications, and expreſſions of Reverence, but all have not the [Page] ſame, but according to Topical cuſtomes 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 worſhipt Mercury) in 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 cuſtomes were not obſerved by other countreys; the Jews that threw stones at Chriſt, and the Damoniack that cut himſelf with them, were neither of them interpretable to worſhip him.

section 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 cuſtomes 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 cuſtomes; Here 'tis evident that I mean not the frequent uſage of that ceremony, in oppoſition to a firſt uſage of it, as Mr J. is willing to miſtake me, and ſound one of his arguments on 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.

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

section 11 This ſaying of his ſome Readers may look on with Reverence, as not readily comprehending the importance of it, others may chance to deſpiſe it under the appearance of a tautologie. [Page] But upon pondering, it will appeare 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.

section 12 Some cuſtomes we know there are, which are ſo highly decent, as that the omiſſion of them neceſſarily infers indecency; But what are they? why, ſuch as the law of (at leaſt Lapſt) nature preſcribes, covering of nakedneſſe, and the like; of which tis evident among all that have not learnt of Carneades induſtriouſly to raſe out all natural meaſures of honeſt and diſhoneſt, that the omiſſion of them inferres indecency, yea and neceſſarily inferres 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 inured to what cuſtomes ſoever, and this the very firſt houre after our firſt parents fall, before any cuſtome had been contracted which might recommend it to them.

section 13 And as of theſe his Rule is true, that the omiſſion of theſe neceſſarily inferres undecency, ſo it is in a manner proper to theſe, and belongs not to any other ſort of things, whoſe decency flowes but from ſome poſitive command though it be of God, or cuſtome or command of men. To ſuch things whoſe decency flowes from any command either of God or man, this rule cannot be fully 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 onely dependently on that law, and conditionally, inferre indecency; ſo in like manner the Rule holds not in thoſe things, whoſe decency is introduced onely by cuſtome, for that, as Mr. I. truely ſaith, ariſing from frequency of actions, it muſt again be granted, that there was a time when that which now is cuſtome, was new, and ſo not cuſtome, and again there are, or may be nations, with whom that cuſtome (whatſoever can be inflanced in) hath not prevailed, which prejudges ſtill the neceſſity ſpoken of, that ſuch omiſſion ſhould inferre indecency.

section 14 And ſo we ſee the ſumme of Mr I. his liberal conceſſion, viz: that decency implies naturall decency, or ſuch cuſtomes, [Page] 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 baptiſme without the croſſe, is againſt the law of nature, that the preaching without the ſurplice beares analogy to the diſcloſing of Nakedneſſe, he is utterly refuted by Mr I. in his interpretation of [...], or notion of decency.

section 15 That this is indeed his meaning (though ſomewhat darkned in that his expreſſion) will appear but conſequent to the two things, which he hath premiſed in this matter, from Ameſius his notion of decency, p. 64. in Marg: 1. that decency requires not that any ſacred things be instituted de novo, but onely that thoſe things which are inſtituted by God, be uſed in that manner which is agreeable to the dignity of them, 2. that as order ſo decency belongs to civil offices, as well as ſacred things, in which indecorum eſt vitium oppoſitum debito illi modo, qui requiritur ad eorum juſtum finem 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 ſpeakes 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 praecepts alſo, to obteining a juſt end, this ſure is more than the omiſſion of an indifferent cuſtome, which may or may not be continued without any offence againſt nature, even the omiſſion of ſtrict univerſal duty, either natural decency, or ſomewhat that beares proportion with it.

section 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 custome, is certeinly another thing from natural[Page]decency, and hath place onely in thoſe things, the omitting of which doth not neceſſarily inferre indecency. That omiſſion which neceſſarily inferres indecency, inferres it in all that eever did, or ſhall omit it; we know in logick, 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. Praelatiſts, I ſuppoſe,) do conceive, that Adam (whether in, or out of paradiſe) Noah in, or out of the Arke, &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 ſign of the Croſſe, but under the ſame penalty?

section 17 Nay ti's allready 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 cuſtome: And if ſo, then cuſtome is a rule of decency alſo, and not onely the Law and light of Nature, and where cuſtome, and not the light of Nature is the rule, there the omiſſion of that doth not neceſſarily inferre indecency. And of ſuch decency alone it is evident that I ſpake, on the head of Ʋniformity, (and could not ſpeake ſenſe, if I ſpake, either of any other, or of the General notion of Decency, which is competible to any other) and from thence it followes demonſtratively, that of that Decency of which I ſpake, (though not of that, of which it is certain I ſpake not) ſtill Cuſtome is the onely rule of decency.

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

section 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 affixt 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 [Page] meaning. This latter the addition of a few words will clear alſo.

section 19 My concluſion deſigned in that Section, was the juſtifying of Ʋnformity of ceremonies in the ſervice of God, and one of the grounds to ſupport that, the decency of thoſe ceremonies, wherein all ſhould joyn, and that decency ruled, and judged of by the cuſtome of the place, in which ſuch or ſuch a ceremony was an uſual indication, and expreſſion of that reverence, which being due from all inferiours to their ſuperious, is much more due from all Chriſtians to God.

section 20 In theſe it is certain, cuſtome 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 reverened 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 governour, will he be pleaſed with thee?

section 21 Apply this to a particular caſe, to a Nation, where 'tis cuſtomary to addreſs to Kings, kneeling, and there the Analogie will hold exactly, (but not where that is not cuſtome.) 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 cuſtome, the one rule of decency in ſuch matters, that according to Gods arguing it cannot be decently done in his ſervice, which is the tendring our petitions or requests to that infinite Majeſty. And ſo proportionably in other things.

section 22 This I did not there apply to the Croſs in Baptiſme, 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 Croſs expreſly named, 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 deem'd incumbent on me to prove, that the omiſſion of them infers indecency, [Page] 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 cauſleſly out of this Church, or the whole Liturgie for their ſakes.]

section 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 perſwaſion, 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.

section 24 And firſt for the Croſſe in Baptiſme. 1. 'Tis known to all that our Chriſtian courſe is a spiritual warfare under Chriſt our Great General; Now it is, and alwayes hath been customary over the world, that in a Militia there ſhould be ſome banner, or Inſigne, to which every one ſhould reſort and fight under it. This hath cuſtome made decent among all, and ſuppoſing that cuſtome, the omiſſion of it in an army is indecent, yet not ſo, as things diſhonest, or breaches of the Law of Nature, are indecent.

section 25 And the Croſſe on which Chriſt was crucified, the Embleme alſo of that ſtate that every Chriſtian enters into, a conſtant couragious patience for all afflictions was by the primitive Chriſtians thus uſed, as their Sign [...] crucis actio Chriſtiana deſcribitur. Aug. de Doctr. Chr. l. 4. ſymbol or Inſigne, and every man that is inrolled in the Chriſtian Militia, is by him that inrols him, ſigned with it; and this practice being thus founded, and received in the Church, Saint Auguſtines words are worth remembring, and cannot be denied to have truth in them, In Joh. Tr. 118. Signum crucis niſi adhibeatur, ſive frontibus credentium, ſive ipſi aquae quâ regeneramur &c. nihil ritè perficitur, unleſs the ſign of the croſs be uſed either to the foreheads of the believers (who are Baptized) or to the water it ſelf by which we are regenerate, it is not duly performed, i. e. with ſuch ceremonies, as by cuſtome of the Church the Rule of decency, belong to it; and, Crucis ſigno in fronte hodie tanquam in poſte ſignandus es, omneſque Chriſtiani ſignantur (de Catechiz. rud. 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. In the forehead [Page] head particularly Tom. 10 p. 289. B. in fronte figat ubi ſedes pudoris) becauſe the ſeat of ſhame is there, which we render in token that the baptized ſhall rot be aſhamed—.

section 26 Secondly, the uſage of this ceremony of ſigning with the Croſs, was we alſo know, frequent in the Church (while the gifts of healing continued) inSee Aug. de Civ. D [...]il. 22. c. 8. curing diſeaſes, and caſting out Devils, ſo that Athanaſius frequently affirmes of it,De Incarnat. 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 Paganprum metu crucis reſponſa dare non poſſunt. [...], by the ſign of the croſs all magick and witchcraft is brought to nought, all the Idol Temples laid waſte and empty.

section 27 And then Baptiſme being the exorciſing 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 Baptiſme, according to that of Tertullian, de Reſurr. Carn. Caro ſignature ut anima muniatur, the fleſh or body is ſigned, that the ſoul may be defended or fortified.

section 28 And if inſtead of theAd omnem progreſſum frantem crucis ſignaculo terimus. Tertul. de Cor. Mil. c. 3. frequent uſe of it among the ancients, evenVide Narrat [...]. Hippolyti Apoſtolorum [...], apud Pallad. Hiſt. Lauſ. pag. 1049. [...]. before the cumberſome weight of ce emonies 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 have any need of it, thoſe that are any way ill affected) we in this our Church retein it, onely in our ſolemne [Page]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 ( [...], 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?

section 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 weare not thoſe robes in common occaſions which there they do, as betokening their quality and the imployments they are about. And then what is thus cuſtomarie in civil matters (viz: to difference perſons and imployments, yea and dayes by diſtinction of garments) and is allowed to be decent therein, this by analogie undeniable, is as fitly and decently from thence derived to ſolemne ſacred actions alſo, ſuch are the publick 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 neare 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 boote) will readily be able to produce for the rejecting of them, or breaking, and caſting away thoſe bands, which tyed no harder a yoke than this upon their ſhoulders.

section 30 In this caſe I believe (though not in the garments themſelves) there is place for that decency, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily inferres indecency, and for ſuch order the breaking of which muſt ſoon end in [...] (which Mr I. ſaith, St. Paul oppoſes to [...]) viz: down right confuſion.

[Page] section 31 Having ſa'd thus much ex abundanti, above what was incumbert on me, I ſhall flatter my ſelf, that I may now ſpare any larger paines, in ſurvey of Ameſius's arguments, which Mr J. is reſolved to think conſiderable, and to ſpeake very magnificently of them, as proving that the text is 1 Cor. xiv. 40. rightly underſtood doth not onely not authorize any humane inſtitution of ceremonies, but on the contrary plainly condemnes them, and this, ſaith he, was ſo well managed by him, that he hath quite beaten out of the field Biſhop Morton and his ſecond, Dr J. Burges:

section 32 Here is triumph indeed. And I ſuppoſe the Reader already diſcernes, what are the grounds of it, viz. that Ameſius acknowledges nothing decent, but that, the omiſſion of which neceſſarily inferres 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 cuſtome, or obedience to our lawfull 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 cloake or a buttond doublet, is abſolutely unlawfull by force of 1 Cor. xiv. 40.

section 33 This being the bottome of thoſe arguments of Ameſius, I may ſafely tell Mr J. that they could no otherwiſe beat either Biſhop Morton, or Dr J. Burgeſſe out of the field, than that they thought them utterly unworthy their making replies to; He that thinkes there is nothing indifferent, nothing lawfull, the omiſſion of which is not ſin, doth certainly uſe other dictonaries than we do; diſcernes no difference betwixt lawfull, and neceſſary, and as the Aſſertors of Fatall 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 walke 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 lawes to words (making the word [lawfull or poſſible] which was wont to be interpreted [Page] that which may or may not be done, to ſignifie onely that which must be done, and may not be emitted) and not new reaſons to confirme old paradexes.

section 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 caſſ [...]ck; than by more ſerious attempts of conviction, i.e. in plain termes to despiſe and ſmile at, than to dread; and if Mr J. have really read Mr Hooker, whom he ſomwhere intitles our Patrone of ceremonies, he may in him remember a diſcourſe of lawes, which will ſuperſede all neceſſity, or benefit of my farther inlarging on it.

section 35 Meane while, to the reproch of my great ſtupidity, I willingly acknowledge, that it cannot enter into my underſtanding, what ſenſe that text is capable of, which with the beſt (poſſible) managery can be taught plainly to condemne all inſtitution of ceremonies in the Church, i. e. by what proſyllogiſmes, or ſupplies or advantages of art this Enthymeme ſhall be rendred concludent. The Apoſtle commands that all things be done decently and in order. Ergo, He condemnes all institution of Ceremonies for Gods worſhip. He that can maintain this conſequence not onely to be true, but (as Mr J. affirmes of him) plain and evident, will be a formidable adverſarie indeed, much better deſerving that title, than one whom he knowes not, and therefore honours with it.

section 36 His third and laſt impreſsion now remaines, wherein he undertakes to prove by 3. arguments that cuſtome 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 knowes I there ſpeak, in the §. concerning Ʋniformity, 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 affirme, 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 Eccleſiaſtick Conformity [Page] conſiſted, cuſtome and onely cuſtome was the rule of Decency.

section 37 His ſecond argument is wholly deceitfull, and muſt be diſcovered to be ſo by reducing it to rules of art. 'Tis by him variouſly formed into two ſeveral Syllogiſmes. The firſt is this.

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

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

section 38 But this is no regular Syllogiſme, '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.

section 39 But he hath thought fit to vary this ſyllogiſme, and give it in other termes, and then one might hope it would be exactly form'd. 'Tis thus,

It is impoſſible that the onely rule of decency ſhould be undecent.

But yet it is very poſſible that many cuſtomes ſhould be indecent.

Therefore he ſhall conclude that cuſtome is not the onely rule of decency.

section 40 But this is no ſyllogiſme 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 ſyllogiſme 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.

section 41 To diſcover this deceit then, the ſyllogiſme which is now no ſyllogiſme muſt be ſomewhat better form'd, according to the rules of Logick, and reduced, as near as it can, into a true ſyllogiſme. Thus,

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

But cuſtome is it ſelf undecent.

Therefore cuſtome cannot be the onely rule of decency.

[Page] Here before it can be defin'd whether this be a regular ſyllogiſm, or no, it muſt be demanded, quanta eſt minor, is the aſſumption Ʋ niverſal 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 cuſtome cannot be the only rule of decency, which is willingly granted by me, who do not at all affirm it of undecent cuſtomes; But if the minor be Ʋniverſal, then 'tis a falſe propoſition, for certainly all cuſtomes 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 it ſelf 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 it ſelf 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 comlineſs and honeſty, ſhould by pretence of any cuſtome whatever, be introduced into Gods worſhip; 'Tis ſufficient that ſome cuſtomes 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 cuſtomes were the rule of decency, but that ſome were, and that there was no other rule, but cuſtome. This, I hope, hath diſcovered the invalidity of his ſecond argument.

section 42 His laſt argument [becauſe there is dicency 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 cuſtomes of any place do allow to be reverential among them; Or, in yet plainer words, the civil cuſtomes of any Nation, by which this or that ſort of geſture is rendred 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 [Page] alſo, and conſequently for the first part of his exception, that againſt my interpretation of [...] decently.

section 43 But there is yet a ſecond charge behind againſt my rendring of [...], according to appointment] which he hath managed in theſe words.

section 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, adventureth upon a new interpretation of them.

The words [...] (ſaith he,) literally import according unto appointment, [...] ſometimes ſignifies to appoint, as Mat. 28. 16. Act. 22. 10. and 28. 23. And we may here upon argue à conjugatis, that [...] may be ſometimes rendred appointment. But becauſe it may ſometimes be rendred appointment, will it therefore follow that it muſt be ſo rendred in this place?

We may ſay as will as the Dr. that the words [...] 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. Burgeſſe in his rejoynder unto Ames p. 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 propheſie one by one &c. and not all or many speake at once. 2. We have the oppoſite of order taken in this ſenſe. 1. v. 33. confuſion. Let all things be done in order, then is as much as, let all things be done without confuſion. And I hope confuſion may be avoided in the worſhip of God without ſuch ceremonies as ours.

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

I am ſenſible that I have by this diſcourſe provoked a very learned and formidable adverſary, but it is onely love of the truth hath ingaged me in ſo unequal an incounter, and therefore I hope the Dr will pardon and excuſe my boldneſſe. 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.

section 45 To this my anſwer will be very briefe, 1. by giving the reaſon of my rendring, 2. by evidencing, that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring, yet my concluſion would very regularly, follow thence, and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainſayer, about my rendring.

section 46 For the firſt, it is manifeſt to any that knowes but the elements of Greeke, that [...] literally and properly ſignifies [according to ordination or appointment] [...] ſignifies [according to] not [in] and [...] or [...] [an ordinance or conſtitution] millions of times in authors, and [...] orderly, or in order] lying more conſonant with [...], no reaſon can be rendred, why if that had been the deſigned meaning, that word ſhould not have been uſed there.

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

section 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 [...]] 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 affaires, muſt by conſequence be interpreted to command the inſtituting and obſerving uniformity of ceremonies in a Church. This I thus deduce.

[Page] section 49 Firſt there is no poſsibility of worſhipping God externally and publickly, 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 Ʋniformity among many, without either agreement one with another, or direction of ſome ſuperior to them all, what ſhall by all be uniformely performed. Fourthly the agreement one with another, if it be onely voluntarie, and ſuch, as by which none are obliged, no way ſecures the end; but if it be ſuch an agreement, that every ſingle perſon is obliged to obſerve, then ſtill is that a law of that body, as of a Councel, &c. and as truely ſo, as the conſtitution of a ſingle Praelate can be thought to be. And ſo the concluſion regularly followes, that to the preſerving but of order, or orderlyneſſe in a Church, it is neceſſary, there be appointment, what ſhall by all be uniformely performed; confuſion unavoidably coming in, where no certain rules are preſcribed for Ʋniformity.

section 50 What can be denyed in this proceſſe, I fore ſee not, yet when ti's granted, one reſerve Mr J. hath ſtill left him. For ſaith he, if it were granted that [...] ſignifies appointment or ordination, yet ſtill it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove, that this extends not onely to the cuſtomes and appointments of the Apoſtolike Churches, but alſo to the Churches of ſucceeding ages. And my anſwer to this will conclude this whole debate.

section 51 Firſt then 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, for, provided thoſe ceremonies were once inſtituted, all that this text inforces, is uniforme obedience to them.

section 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 publick ſupplication ſhall be addreſt, in what, lauds and hymnes, and confeſſion of the faith, &c. and yet the rule is given by them, that all ſhall be done according to appointment, and 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 [Page] 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 [...] 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 uniformely when they thus gave orders to them.

section 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 [...] according to appointment, ſhould from time to time be diſobliged, and free to diſobey them in whatſoever they appoint us.

section 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, &c. (i.e. by parity of reaſon, to the Biſhops in every Iſl [...]nd) to make them, here what power is left them, may certainly with perfect ſafety be exerciſed by them, and that neceſſarily inferres our obligation to yield obedience to their exerciſes of them.

section 55 This is all the obſervance Mr J. ſeemes to expect of me at this time, unleſſe his intimation to all admirers of Mr. Hooker, p. 144. that they ſhould vindicate their great Patrone of Ceremonies, may paſſe for an admonition to me, who acknowledge my ſelf a thankfull adorer of Gods graces in that Godly learned man, and ſo exact a few lines more above the regular account.

[Page] section 56 This will detain me no longer than whileſt I mind the Reader that in a diſcourſe of the ben [...]fits which we receive from Chriſt in the Sacrament, Eccl. Pal. 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 ſhewes at large, 1. that as nothing created can be unlimited, or receive any ſuch accident from any as may really make it infinite, ſo neither the ſoul nor body of Chriſt, nor Chriſt as man, nor according to his humane nature, can poſſibly be every where preſent, no nor the ſubſtance of the body of Chriſt, which neither hath nor can have any preſence but onely local. 2. That this cannot be rendred 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 humane nature with the Deity, which conjunction is extended as far as the Deity, the actual poſition being reſtrain'd and tied to a certain place, and 2. by cooperation with Deity, and that in all things.

section 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. p. 140. 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 wondred at by him, that they ſhould fall from ſo learned a pen.

section 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.

section 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 reconcilation 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 [Page] (and in ſimplicity and propriety of ſpeaking) in a groſs errour, impoſſible even to the power of God to have truth in it.

section 60 If any ſhould chance to ſay of an eloquent man, that you might hear an Angel speak in him, and I ſhould reply, that it might peradventure be well enough granted in a ſort, or in ſome ſenſe, that when he ſpake you might hear an Angel, aſſuring you at large of my opinion, that no bare man can truly be an Angel, nay that it was impoſſible for God himſelf to bring to paſs, that at the ſame time he ſhould be an Angel, and not an Angel, a man, and not a man, or which is all one, a bare man, and yet an Angel, or (in fewer words) when Chriſt ſaith he is a door, and a vine, if I ſhould ſay, that in a ſort and in ſome ſenſe, and that in two respects, each of theſe had truth in them, would 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?

section 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.

section 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 publick 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 kindneſſe or candor it had been, to have propoſed his exceptions in ſuch a manner of friendly addreſs, as might have brought him home the ſame ſatisfaction, [Page] and ſaved others the importunity of theſe uſeleſſe, becauſe perſonal debates. When he hath ſincerely obſerved in himſelf the motive of his other distant choice, I have obtained the end of my charity in mentioning it to him, and have no more to return to him at this time.

THE END.

Errata in the firſt Reply to Mr Jeanes.

Pag. 1. l. 2. dele to. p. 3. l. 4. r. change. l. 28. r. another, ſee▪ magli. p. 6. l. 11, r. is in that. p. 10. l. 30. r. [...].

Errata in the ſecond Reply to Mr Jeanes.

Pag. 11. l. 1. r. known to ſtand. p. 13. l. 28. r. meer external. p. 15. l. 6. r. Mr Hynde, and Mr Glapthorne two vthement disputers. p. 16. l. 23. r. meaſures.

Information about this book

Title statement

Ektenesteron, or, The degrees of ardency in Christs prayer reconciled with his fulnesse of habitval grace in reply to the author of a book, intituled, A mixture of scholastical divinity with practical / by H. Hammond ...

Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660.

Edition statement

1656

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2007-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A70315

ID [STC]

Wing H540

ID [STC]

ESTC R14859

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

11845833

ID [OCLC]

ocm 11845833

ID [VID]

49843

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A70315)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 49843)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 533:8)

Source

— Ektenesteron, or, The degrees of ardency in Christs prayer reconciled with his fulnesse of habitval grace in reply to the author of a book, intituled, A mixture of scholastical divinity with practical / by H. Hammond ..., Hammond, Henry, 1605-1660..

Extent

10 p.

Printed for R. Royston ...,. London :: 1656.. (First word of title in Greek characters.) (Bound and filmed previous to the author's Euschēmonos kai kata taxin, or, The grounds of uniformity from I. Cor. 14:40. London : Printed by J.G. for Richard Royston, 1657 (Wing H541).) (Reproduction of original in Bristol Public Library, Bristol, England.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.