Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 30 – hammond 32
Jeanes.
1. I had no reaſon to imagine that your words were to be reſtrained unto things indifferent, geſtures and other Ceremonies in Gods ſervice, for you undertook to give us the importance of the Apoſtles words: Let all things be done decently, and the Apoſtles words reach unto even naturall decency, now of that the light of nature is a rule.
2. There be, as Bel…armine rightly lib. 2. de effectu ſacramentor. cap. 29. ſome Ceremonies, which receive their inſtitution as it were from nature it ſelf, which may be called naturall Ceremonies, as to looke up to Heaven, to lift up our hands, to bow our knees, and knock our breaſts when we pray unto God: Quaedam Caerem…niae ſunt ab ipſa natura quodammodo inſtitutae, quae naturales dici poſſunt, quale eſt reſpicere in coelum, tollere manu…, flectere genua, tundere pectus, eum Deum oramus; i… a enim natura ipſa docet, unde et…am communes ſunt Gentilibus & quibuſcunque ſectis.
3. Thoſe Ceremonies which we oppoſe, ſymbolicall Ceremonies, ſuch as the Croſſe and Surplice, are not things indifferent, becauſe they are impoſed and uſed as parts of Gods worſhip, and no worſhip of God is indifferent.
4. Suppoſe that I concurred with you in holding the queſtioned Ceremonies to be lawfull, yet I ſhould deny Cuſtome to be the onelyonly rule of their Decency, and that becauſe the light and Law of Nature, right Reaſon is a rule thereof too. My argument I ſhall thus re…enforce; If Cuſtome be in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, the only 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: therefore in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of Decency.
The ſequele of the Major is evident from what Logicians ſay concerning, firſt, the expoſition, ſecondly, converſion, and thirdly, conſecution of excluſive propoſitions.
1. Concerning the expoſition of them, Propoſitio excluſiva ſubjecti affirmativae exponitur per duas exponentes, quarum prima eſt affirmata, & appellatur praejacens, eſtque nihil alind quam propoſitio excluſiva, dempto ſigno excluſivo: & ſecunda eſt negativa de ſubjecto excluſivè infinitato, vel negato. This excluſive propoſition then in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, Cuſtome is the only rule of Decency, muſt be expounded by theſe two.
1. By an Affirmative: in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, Cuſtome is a rule of Decency: And then
2. Negative: whatſoever is not Cuſtome, that is not in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice a rule of Decency.
2. Concerning the converſion of them, Propoſitio exeluſivae ſubjecti affirmativa convertitur in univerſalem affirmativam de tranſpoſitis terminis. The Doctors propoſition then, Cuſtome in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, is the onelyonly rule of Decency, is converted into this Univerſall Affirmative, every rule of Decency is Cuſtome.
Well, upon this premiſed concerning the expoſition and converſion of excluſive propoſitions, Logicians lay down concerning the conſecution of them this rule: Ab excluſiva ad exponentes propoſitiones itemque ad univerſalem converſam bona est conſequentia: By this rule then it will follow, that if Cuſtome in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice be the only rule of Decency, that then in them nothing but Cuſtome is the rule of Decency, and that every rule of Decency is Cuſtome. The Major then is fortified beyond all exception.
The Min…r I ſhall confirme by inſtancing in the light or law of Nature, right reaſon, this to joyn iſſue with you, would bee in the controverted Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, if they were lawfull, a rule of Decency.
For firſt, what is the end of a rule but to regu…ate and direct? now the light and law of Nature regulates all geſtures and Ceremonies in Gods worſhip, as touching their Decency.
2. It is in theſe particulars not only a rule, but a principall rule of Decency, by which all Cuſtomes are to be tryed, examined, and regulated.
For the confirmation of this I ſhall adde three reaſons.
1. Geſtures, Ceremonies agreeable unto Cuſtome may be found to be diſſonant unto the light and law of Nature, and to be rejected as undecent.
2. Cuſtome is not the rule of decency unleſſe it have the force of a Law, and that it cannot have, ſay the School-men, rightly, unleſſe it be rationabilis, and ſuch it cannot be, unleſſe it be agreeable unto right reaſon, which is all I meane by the light and law of nature; though the light of nature doe not dictate the neceſſity of it, yet it muſt give allowance and approbation of it; without its warrant it is not to be received as Decent.
A 3. Argument ſhall be ad hominem: by nature you ſay, out of Suldas, is meant 1 Cor. 11.14, Cuſtome of ſome continuance in that place, and what more probable reaſon can be aſſigned for terming of a Cuſtom Nature, then its conformity unto its allowance and approbation by the Law of Nature?
It being thus proved, that even in the Veſtures, Geſtures, and Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, upon ſuppoſition of their lawfulneſſe, the law and light of nature is a principall rule, it will follow that wee may with farre better reaſon ſay of it, than of cuſtome, that 'tis, in the matters ſpoken of, the onelyonly rule of Decency: For
1. We may truly ſay of the law and light of Nature, that it is in Ceremonies the only rule of Decency, though Cuſtome be a rule thereof alſo; becauſe the excluſive particle onelyonly doth not exclude things ſubordinate: Now Cuſtome is a rule of Decency ſubordinate unto the light of Nature, and therefore is not excluded, when I ſay, the light and law of nature is the onelyonly rule of Decency.
2. We cannot ſay of Cuſtome, with any truth at all, that it is the onelyonly rule of Decency in the matters before you, wherein Eccleſiaſtical conformity conſiſteth, becauſe the onelyonly things excepted from being excluded by the particle onelyonly, are things ſubordinate, and things neceſsarily contomitant; but now the light and law of Nature as it is not ſubordinate unto cuſtome, ſo neither is it neceſſarily concomitant therewith; for divers cuſtomes in Ceremonies may be, and have been irrational againſt the light and law of Nature: The law and light of Nature then is excluded from being a rule of Decency, by ſaying Cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of Decency.
Adde hereunto, that the particle ſolum, onelyonly, doth not alwaies exclude à totâ specie, but ſometimes onelyonly à ſummitate speciei, as may bee ſeen in Scheibl. topic. c. 2. n. 29. Now Cuſtome is a leſſe principall rule, that muſt undergoe tryal and examination by the light and law of Nature, as a ſuperiour rule.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 37, 38.
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 in two ſeveral Syllogiſmes. The firſt is this.
Nothing can be undecent which is agreeable to the onelyonly rule of Decency.
But divers things are undecent, which yet can plead cuſtome. The concluſion now muſt be, Therefore Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of Decency.
38. But this is no regular Syllogiſme, 'tis in no mood or figure, not readily reducible to any; and therefore 'twas his onelyonly way to preſume it evident, and never to endeavour any proof thereof.
Jeanes.
I never ſaid that it was an exact and regular Syllogiſme.
But firſt, here is matter for a Categorical Syllogiſme, and it is eaſily reducible
1. Unto a Hypothetical Syllogiſme.
2. Ad Syllogiſmum ducentem ad impoſſibile.
1. Here is matter for a Categoric al Syllogiſme: The only rule of Decency hath not any thing undecent agreeable unto it: Cuſtome hath many undecent things agreeable unto it: Therefore Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of Decency.
2. 'Tis eaſily reducible,
1. Unto a Hypotheticall Syllogiſme.
2. Ad Syllogiſinum ducentem ad impoſſibile.
1. It may be reduced unto an Hypotheticall Syllogiſme thus: If Cuſtome be the onelyonly rule of Decency, then nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto Cuſtome: But divers things are undecent which are agreeable unto Cuſtome; Therefore Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of Decency.
The ſequele of the Major is evident, becauſe nothing can be undecent that is agreeable to the onelyonly rule of Decency.
And the Minor cannot bee denyed: In the Syllogiſme then there is only a Crypſis, the Major is concealed, and the proof thereof placed in its roome, and Cryptical Syllogiſmes are in all diſcourſes juſtifiable, when they may be reduced: If you call upon me to reduce the hypothetical Syllogiſme, unto which it is reduced, unto a Categorical, you will herein be unreaſonable; for thoſe hypothetical Syllogiſmes that have four terms in the Major, are hardly capable of reduction unto a Categorical Syllogiſme; So Scheibler hath inſtructed me, de Propoſ. &c. cap. 12, n. 24.
2. It is reduced unto that Syllogiſme which is foreign, which doth ducere ad impoſſibile, as it is taken largly for that argumentation which doth reduce an adverſary unto an abſurdity upon his own principles; for from this your principle, that Cuſtome is the onelyonly …ule of Decency, this Syllogiſme will ine, vitably follow,
Nothing that is agreeable to the onelyonly rule of decency can be undecent.
All things cuſtomary are agreeable to the onelyonly rule of decency: Therefore nothing cuſtomary can be undecent.
But now this concluſion is apparently falſe, therefore one of the premiſes is alſo falſe; for ex vero nil niſi verum ſequitur: It is not the Major, for the only rule of decency makes and denominates every thing conformable unto it to be decent, therefore it is the Minor, which is, that all things cuſtomary are agreeable unto the only rule of decency; and if this propoſition be falſe, then your poſition is falſe too, that cuſtome is the only rule of decency, becauſe all things cuſtomary are agreeable unto cuſtome.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 39, 40…
But he hath thought fit to vary this Syllogiſme, and give it in other terms, and the… one might hope it would be exactly formed, 'Tis-thus,
It is impoſſible that the onelyonly 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 onelyonly rule of decency.
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 granted truth, that Law is the onelyonly rule of Iuſtice, yet this I ſhall diſprove by a Syllogiſme exactly formed by Mr. J. his model. Thus,
It is impoſſible, that the onelyonly rule of Iuſtice ſhould be unjuſt. But yet it is very poſſible that many Laws ſhould be unjuſt, Therefore I ſhall conclude that Law is not the onelyonly rule of Juſtice,