performed i. e. with such ceremonies as by custome of the Church the rule of decency belong to it Jeanes Saint Augustins words at large are as followeth Quod signum nisi adhibeatur sive frontibus credentium sive ipsi aquae qua regeneramur sive oleo quo Chrismate unguntur sive sacrificâ—o quâ— aluntur nihil eorum ritè perficitur Saint Augustine here you see approves of the Châ—ism and of the crossing of the Oyle therein and sets it check by joule with the water in Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lords Supper now your friends doe hope that you doe not concurre with him herein and if you doe nor why doe you urge us with the authority of his Testimony 2. If you apply Saint Augustines words to our times and aver that they cannot be denyed to have truth in them then your opinion is that unlesse the sign of the Crosse be used to the water in Baptism and to the Elements in the Lords Supper these Sacraments are not duly performed with such ceremonies as by custome of the Church the rule of decency belong unto them and then what Apology can you make for the Church of England that never since the Reformation used any of â—hese Crossings 3. Suppose Baptism in Augustines time had been administred without Crossing of either the forehead of the Baptised or the water wherewith they were baptised it had then indeed been performed not with such ceremonies as by the Custome of the then Church belonged unto it and so Fulk in his Confutation of the Rhemists expoundeth Augustines ritè page 693. but this concludes nothing against us for we hold that such Baptisme hath been ritè that is duly lawfully and laudably administred because it would have been agreeable unto Christs institution which alone and not the custome of the Church is the rule of its administration 4. These words of Augustine are at best but propositio malè sonans for they carry a palpable appearance of evill because they plainly seem to assert the necessity of the Sign of the Crosse unto Baptisme and the Lords Supper Bellarmine bringeth them to prove that nothing can be consecrated without the sign of the Crosse de Sacra confirm lib. 2. c. 13 as also to justifie their Crossings that they use in the Masse de Missa lib. 3. c. 13. And there 's a Popish Ballad mentioned by the Abridgement and transcribed in Parker wherein I beleeve this is one of the places in Augustine related unto part 1. p. 92. Without the Crosse Saint Augustine saith Read him and you may see 1. No man is stedfast in the Faith Nor Christened well may be No Sacrifice no holy Oyle No washing in the Font 2. Nor any thing can thee assoyle If thou the Cross do want Children by it have Christendome The water 's blest also 3. The Holy Ghost appears to some And eifts of Grace bestow When that this Cross is made aright Of them that hallowed be 4. Where it is not there wanteth might For ought that I can see But the very Canons of the Convocation doe disclaime all necessity of the sign of the Crosse in Baptisme The Church of England since the abolishing of Popery hath ever held and taught and teacheth stil that the sign of the Cross used in Baptisme is no part of the substance of that Sacrament for when the Minister dipping the Infant in water or laying water upon the face of it as the manner also is hath pronounced these words I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost the Infant is fully baptized so as the sign of the Crosse being afterwards used doth neither adde any thing to the virtue or perfection of Baptism nor being omitted doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it Dr. Hammond And Crucis signo in fronte hodie tanquam in poste signandus es omnesque Christiani signantur de Catechiz rud c. 20. tom 4. pag. 915. thou must be signed now in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse as the Israelites on their door posts and so must all Christians Jeanes Whereas you say above that Augustines words cannot be denyed to have truth in them you mean these last quoted as well as the former and if this bee so then it will be an easie matter for you to clear up by argument this undeniable truth that is in them God commanded the Israelites to strike the lintel and the two side posts of the door with the blood of the Passeover therefore all Christians are obliged to be signed in the forehead with the sign of the Crosse sounds with me as a very wild and loose inference and therefore I shall intreat you to confirm it or else relinquish this place of Augustine as containing nothing of an argument in it Bellarmine alledgeth this place of Augustine to prove that the blood of the Lamb sprinkled upon the posts of the doors was a figure of the sign of the Cross Tom. 2. de Eccles triumph lib. 2. c. 29. And unto him Chamier thus answereth Tom. 2. pag. 878 879. Nego crucem significatam in veteri Testamento nisi per accidens hoc est quatenus Christus significatus est crucifigendus Sed crucem directè ac per se significatam ullis figuris nego Nec ignoro tamen produci posse in contrarium testimonia quaedam ex Patribus Sed ego quicquid Patribus in buccam venit non censeo amplect endum ut verbum Dei. Potest inquiebat Augustinus in Psalmum trigesimum sextum nihil aliquid videri alteri aliud sed neque ego quod dixero praescribo alteri ad meliorem intellectum nee ille mihi Idem de reliquis dicendum Itaque liceat in earum sententias inquirere Certe illud de sanguine agni posito super utroque poste remotissimum est à Cruce Hoc solum tenuissimum vestigium positio in poste nonnihil alludit ad positionem in fronte quae in corpore supremum locum occupat sicut in ostio postis Sed sanguis quanto aptiùs sanguinem Christi significaret ut apud Gregorium homilia vigesima secunda in Evangelia Quid sit sanguis agni non jaâ—n audiendo sed bibendo didicistis Qui sanguis super utrumque postem ponitur quando non solum ore corporis sed etiam ore cordis hauritur Gretserus excipit posse unum idemque plura significare Ita sane inquam sed primo variis rationibus Itaque eadem ratione qua significat sanguinem non potest significare crucem At unius loci unica est ratio Quare fi hoc uno loco significat sanguinem Christi non significat crucem Deinde unum idemque potest varia significare at non quaelibet sed ea tantum ad quae habet analogiam Quaenam est vero analogia sanguinis agni ad crucem nam agno significari Christum nemo inficias eat Quomodo ergo sanguis ex agno
in the same place and sentence is to be taken in strict signification as opposed only to the vice of undecency Now hence it followeth that decency requireth nothing but that which is hecessary to the avoiding of undecency I ask therefore if undecency in Gods worship cannot be avoided without double treble sacred significant Ceremonies of mans inventing If nor then the Apostles did much forget themselves in their publick worshiping of God before men had invented such Ceremonies for that is no answer which the Rejoynd after giveth all Churches are not bound to this or that particular way of comelinesse All Churches are bound to avoid undecency and to doe that which decency requireth or bindeth them unto If yea then Decency doth not require such kind of Ceremonies Neither doth it indeed any more then order So Mr. Perkins lat to 2. p. 888. Decency is when the service of God is performed with convenient and fit circumstances of time place person and gesture and here of the Apostle speaketh 1 Cor. 14.40 The plain simple truth without Cereâ—oniall affectation is that decency is in this place nothing but good civil fashâ—â—n agreeable not only to worship but also to any grave assembly Decency saith Pareus upon the place is opposed to vanity sports riot it stands not in hoods Caps or vizards of fond Ceremonies c. I dare appeal to D. B. his conscience if Baptisme be not as decently administred without the Crosse as with it and publick prayers made as decently without a Surplice as with it Let conscience here speak and the Rejoynde harkening unto it will without all doubt confesse that decency in this place doth no more require either Crosse or Surplice then order and that both of them together doth no more require those Ceremonies then a hundred other which in England though not at Rome are denyed unto them To this purpose Mr. Attersall in his second book of the Sacrament chap. 5. saith well if they referre all this trash and trumpery of hamane Ceremontes in Baptisme to order and comeliness as Hosius doth do they not thereby blasphemously accuse the Baptisme of John and of the Apostles of uncomelinesse and disorder whereas the comeliness and dignity of the Sacraments is to be esteemed by the word of God by the institution of Christ by the simplicity of the Gospell and by the practice of the Apostles Nothing is more comely decent and orderly then that which Christ commandeth and alloweth nothing is more uncomely and unseemly then that which man inventeth in the service of God and in the celebration of the Sacraments thereby inverting and perverting the holy Ordinances of God 12. The received definitions of order are brought in to the same purpose by the Replier And the Rejoynder yeildeth so much as they import viz. that order in strict signification doth not imply such Ceremonies as ours He must therefore either prove that in this place 1 Cor. 14.40 that word is not taken strictly which he himself formerly granted or give up the place which is by his own confession the only place of all the New Testament for warranâ—ing of such Ceremonies or flie to decency upon which he cannot any more fasten then upon order as haâ—h been shewed Nothing materiall is added in the rest of the Rejoynd his answer unto this argument where our divines are observed to distinguish order and decency from mysticall Ceremonies the context of the Chapter 1 Cor. 14. is declared to respect nâ— mysticall Ceremonies the Phrase of Scripture is shewed to consent nothing I say and the Reader may see is added but only the same things are â—epeated about order and decency which are now sufficiently discussed So the Rejoynder hath nothing to say to the contrary but that we may safely conclude Ergo to appoint and use the Ceremonies as we doe is not left to the liberty of the Church i. e. it is unlawfull If there were nothing else against them in all the Scripture then this place besides which the Defend and Rejoynd can find none in all the New Testament for them any indifferent man would say they are not allowed Those that are devoted to the Ceremonies may shuffle up and down first to Oâ—der and when they are beaten thence to Decency and from decency when they can defend that no longer to Edification as the Rejoynd doth But all will not help Let them pitch or insist upon one of these grounds without starting I will pawn my Head their Aâ—â—hor will come home to them again as finding noe fast ground either in Order Decency or Edification for double significant Ceremonies such as oâ—rs to ride at The Defend could frame no consequence out of any of these words the Rejoynd saith there is one but he cannot shew it To the contrary consequence nothing is answered of any moment And is not this a miserable cause which hath no place in all the N. Testament which the best Advocates can alledge for it but only that out of which it is utterly confounded To the Defend and Rejoynders maintaining such a cause this testimony may be given that they would willingly so farre as they can favour things which the times favour and therefore strive to make something of that which maketh nothing for them In the former section when Order Decency and Edification should have been handled as rules according to the title of the digression the Rejoynder suddainly breaketh off referring them to a fitter place Now here in this place he was constrained to touch upon them but so softly and sparingly that it appeareth he found this no fitter place then the former for those reserved Considerations When shall we come to the fitter place By this I hope the Reader is satisfied that there is more in Ames his Argument than you imagined and thinks that you had no reason to slight it before you had seen it I will readily acknowledge that you are faâ—e his superiour for your incomparable skill in Critical learning and Antiquity and all the world would account me a fool to say or think otherwise but I hope it is no blasâ—hemy to say that hee was not much your inferiour for Logick Philosophy and Scholastical Divinity in which latter hee was nâ—ore versed than most of our Protestant Writers Comparisons I know are odious buâ—â— Apologize for a dead man and therefore I hope I shall be held excused Indeed his memory â—â—ght to be precious with mee for though I dissent from him in some things yet I must needs confesse that in my first study of Divinity I most profited by him I have often found in a few words of his that satisfaction which I in vaine searched for in more voluminous discourses I know that hee hath been contemned by many but it hath been by Learned men that never read him or by ignorant Readers that never understood him and indeed unto those that have not made some tolerable progresse in Philosophy he will be in many places
on his side I shall not be sorry or ashamed to be overcome by him 45. To this my answer will be very breif 1. By giving the reason of my rendring 2. By evidencing that if the vulgar were acknowledged the righter rendring yet my cenclusion would very regularly follow thence and that therefore I have no need to contend with any gainsayer about my rendring 46. For the first it is manifest to any that knowes but the elements of Greek that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 literaly and properly signifies according to ordination or appointment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to not in and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an ordinance or constitution millions of times in authors and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ordâ—rly or in order lying more consonant with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—â—reason can be rendred why if that had been the designed meaning that word should not have been used there 47. That it may so signify M. J. acknowledges and so I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal which was not that it must necessarily thus signify but that this being the literal regular rendring of it I had sufficient reason to tender it thus 48. I proceed then to the second thing that if what he prepends to be possible also were indeed the onely possible or by way of supposition but not concession if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did really inport no more than in order as that is opposed to disorder or confusion yet-I-say it will soon appear that that Apostles commanding such order or orderliness and forbidding all confusion in Ecclefiostical affaires must by consequence be interpreted to command the instituting and observing uniformity of Ceremonies in a Church Jeanes 1. Our last translators of the Bible surely knew something more then the Elements of Greek or else King James was ill advised to make such a choice of them and yet they thought fit to translate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in order 2. Few mortals perhaps besides your self have read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 millions of times in Authors but to know the meaning of that word there is no need of such great reading one that knowes but the Elements of Greek may by the help of a Greek Concordance and Stephanus his Thesaurus Linguae Graecae make it manifest that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth literally properly order in opposition to confusion But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you say signifieth according to not in But Stephanus in the book but now mentioned will furnish the Reader with store of instances wherein 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies in and a school boy may be able to do as much for the Latine word Secundum out of Cicero and Suetonius But suppose that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were translated here according yet this will no waies disadvantage our sense for according applied to actions signifieth usually the manner of such actions so that both it and the noâ—ne unto which it is joined may be paraphrased by an adverb and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be as much as orderly Adde unto all this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies many times with and so it is translated in the Dutch Bible and let all things be done with order is equivalent unto let all things be done in order Dr. Hammond sect 47. That it may so signify Mr. Jâ—acknowledges and so I have obtained all I seek in my first proposal which was not that it must necessarily thus signify but that this being the literal regular rendring of it I had sufficient reason to render it thus Jeanes Indeed I acknowledged that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes be rendred appointment but I added that it doth not therefore follow that it must be so rendred in this place unlesse you can prove that it must be so rendred in this very place I am to seek what sufficient reason you had to render it thus for if a word hath several acceptions that is to be imbraced that hath most countenance from the context now I gave you for the vulgar sense a reason from the Coherence unto which you say nothing and you say as little from the coherence for the justification of your own reading and therefore I am not to be blamed for adhering unto the vulgar reading especially seing 'tis favoured by the generall consent of both Translators and Commentators though as you observe in the foregoing section 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lye more consonunt in sound with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for I doe not think that the Apostle was bound alwayes to observe Paronomasies Dr. Hammond sect 48 49. I proceed then to the second thing that if what he pretends to be possible also were indeed the only possible or by way of supposition but not concession if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did really import no more than in Order as that is opposed to disorder or confusion yet I say it will soon appear that the Apostles commanding such order or orderlinesse and forbidding all confusion in Ecclesiasticall affaires must by consequence be interpreted to command the instituting and observing Vniformity of Ceremonies in a Church This I thus deduce First there is no possibilitie of worshiping God externally and publickly without use of some Ceremonies or circumstances of time place and gestare c. 2. There is no possibility of order in a multitude without uniformity in the same circumstances 3. There is as little possibility of uniformity among many without either agreement one with another or direction of some superior to them all what shall by all be uniformely performed 4. The agreement one with another if it be only voluntary and such as by which none are obliged no way secures the end but if it be such an agreement that every single person is obliged to observe then still is that a law of that body as of a councel c. and as truely so as the constitution of a single Prelate can be thought to be And so the conclusion regularly followes that to the preserving but of order or orderlinesse in a Church it is necessary there be appointment what shall by all be uniformity performed confusion anavoidably coming in where no certain rules are preseribed for uniformity What can be denyed in this processe I foresee not Here it shall suffice to note that time place and such like circumstances are so manifestly necessary in their kind that the particulars may be deduced from them by particular considerations without any institution but no man can deduce our Ceremonies from those kinds named Mans will is the only reason of them as Gods will is the only reason of Ceremonies truly divine by institution No man can conclude thus we must every where have some garment and therefore in England a Surplice We must alwaies in Baptisme have some admonition to professe the faith and iherefore in England a Crosse We must use reverent gestures in receiving the holy communion and therefore in England we must kneel in
the act of receiving But we may conclude thus we must have a fit place to meet in and this place is generally fittest for our Congregation therefore we must have this We must have a convenient time to meet in and this hour is generally most convenient for our Congregation therefore this The Monks may as well conclude we must have some garments therefore we must in one order have black in another white in a third black over white or white over black in a fourth gray a fifth party coloured in some all woollen in some all linnen c. ad infinitum as well I say every whit as the Rejoynder can conclude from a garment to a Surplice from admonition to the sign of the Crosse or from reverence in a table-gesture â—o kneeling Jeanes Though you cannot see what can be denied in this process yet he that runs may read what is constantly denied by the Non-conformists if he ever read their books they deny over and over over and over c. Your two first conclusions if applied unto the Ceremonies in question Indeed they grant that circumstances of time place order and decency and the like are necessary genere in their kind but these I will tell you are not the Ceremonies in controversy the Ceremonies which they oppose are not circumstantial but doctrinal of moral signification and the mere divises of men such as the surplice Cross c. And you may affirm but can never prove that there is no possibility of worshipping God externally and publickly without such ceremonies for it is manifest that such Ceremonies are not necessary in their kind In hoc vertitur cardo controversiae therefore if you can prove this we shall yield you the cause and ly prostrate at your feet to be trampled upon and triumphed oven and until this proof be made you can never regularly inferre that to the preserving but of order or orderlyness in a Church it is necessary there be appointment what humane religious Ceremonies shall by all be uniformely performed If you shall say that by Ceremonies you understand onely circumstances of time place decency order and the like I shall confesse my-selfe to be mistaken but must withall for my own discharge averre that you alone are guilty of this my mistake for who could reasonablely imagine that in a controversy with the opposers of Ceremonies you should exclude from the Ceremonies mentioned by you all such Ceremonies as they oppose Your second conclusion call's for confirmation and until you shall bethink your selfe of some reason to confirme it I shall offer against it these following instances unto which it is no difficult matter to adde many more suppose the members of Churches in a City meet at nine of the clock for Gods worship and in the Country Parishes adjoining where many people live at a great distance from their Churches they meet at tenne or halfe an houre after nine nay in the same Church at one and the same time whilst the word of God is read or preached those that sit in seats may have their heads uncovered and those that stand in allies may keep on their hats the whole Sermon time because the crowd or throng may render it in convenient to keep them off Now in both these instances there is not uniformity in the same circumstances and yet there may be order observed and confusion may very well notwithstanding be avoided in all the parts of Gods worship and service But to give an instance ad hominem out of Parker some of our Churches in England had Organs some not some discant and broken singing some plaine here was no uniformity but you will not I beleeve say that there was confusion This point of uniformity in rites and Ceremonies the Reader may find at large debated in the now mentioned Mr. Parker Treat of the Cross part 2. pag. 91. usque ad 99. These two conclusions being thus overthrowne I need not stay upon the following which will be uselesse and impertinent without the two former be presupposed as true Dr. Hammond sect 50. 51 52 53 54. What can be denied in this processe I foresee not yet when 't is granted one reserve Mr. J. hath still left him For saith he if it were granted that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies appointment or ordination yet still it will be incumbent on the Dr. to prove that this extends not onely to the customes and appointments of the Apostolicke Churches but also to the Churches of the succeeding ages And my answer to this will conclude this whole debate 51. First then I acknowledge that it is not here necessarily ordained by the Apostle that all the Churches of succeeding ages should institute Ceremonies in worship for provided those Ceremonies were once instituted all that this text inforces is uniforme obedience to them 52. But then Secondly When for many circumstances of Gods worship there is nâ— order particularly taken by Christ and his Apostles as in what gesture publicke supplication shall be addrest in what lauds and hymnes and confession of the faith c. And yet the rule is given by them that all shall be done according to appointment and more over in other places that obedience be paid to those superiors which watch over our soules and when those rules are not given onely to the persons that then lived in the Church of Corinth c. But to all that should ever live in that and in all other Churches it can not then be deemed either that there were no superiors designed to succeed Christ and his Apostles in the ordering of his Church or that they should not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 set in order the things that were wanting such as the Apâ—stles had left undisposed of or that inferiors should not be bound to obey them Vniformely when they thus gave order to them 53. When we are commanded to obey our parents civil as well as natural by a Law given by God to Moses or by Christ to his Disciples can it be strange that we that lived not in either of those ages should thereby be obliged when God in his providence hath given Fathers of both kinds as well as them regularly presiding over us and making use of that liberty that is presumed in all parents viz. to give Commands and expect obedience from their children Certainely it cannot and as little can it be doubted either whether our ecclesiastical parents have power to institute in things omitted thereby remitted to their care by the Apostles or whether we their obedient children that are commanded to act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 according to appointment should from time to time be disobliged and free to disobey them in whatsoever they appoint us 54. 'T is granted him if he please that what Christ and his Apostles have already prescribed should not be repealed by those that thus succeed them should they rashly assume that power they would not in so doing act 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉