Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, jeanes 33 – jeanes 34
Jeanes.
My Syllogiſme is, as I have demonſtrated, a true Syllogiſme; you might the… very well have ſpared the paines you have taken to reduce it, as neare as you could, to a true Syllogiſme; for there was no need of it: You deſerve then no thanks for your labour, but I have reaſon to expect reparation from you for defamation of my Syllogiſme: This Section therefore I might wholly paſſe over, but yet I ſhall ſtay a while upon the examination of a ſecond reſtriction that you put upon your dictate: you have already told us, that it is not to be underſtood of all decency. Now you give us to underſtand, that 'tis not meant of all cuſtoms, but onelyonly of ſome ſuch as are not undecent; when you ſay cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of decency, your meaning is ſome cuſtomes are the only rule of ſome kind of decency in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip.
But whether this liberty which you aſſume in thus limiting your poſition bee juſtifiable, is very queſtionable; for after this rate, what groſſe abſurdities may any man maintain? If I ſhould ſay, that ſolum brutum eſt animal: that a ſpirit only is ſubſtance: that number onelyonly is quantity: that Baptiſme is the only Sacrament of the New Teſtament: would not every one cry out againſt theſe propoſitions as untrue, as well they might? and doe you thinke they would paſſe for currant? though I ſhould come with an after game, and goe about to limit them, in ſuch a manner as you have done, by your aſſertion, and ſay, my meaning was, that ſolum brutum eſt animal irrationale: that a ſpirit onelyonly is an incorporeal ſubſtance: that number onelyonly is diſcrete quantity: that Baptiſme is the onelyonly Sacrament of the New Teſtament of initiation; and yet theſe reſtrictions are altogether as fair and allowable as yours.
2. I did not think your propoſition capable of having an univerſal ſign affixed unto it; and my reaſon was, becauſe as Aquinas p. 1. q. 31. art. 3. obſerveth out of the Summularii, dictio excluſiva immobilitat terminum cui adjungitur, ut non poſſit fieri ſub eo deſcenſus pro aliquo ſuppoſiterum, non enim ſequitur, ſolus homo is animal rationale mortale: Ergo ſolus Socrates.
But yet notwithſtanding this, I thought your propoſition might be propoſitio de Idaea, as they ſay; and ſo, though it were not formally, it would be equivalently univerſal.
But now I ſhall lay aſide this conjecture, becauſe you inform us, that your indefinite propoſition, was intended by you for a particular propoſition, only I ſhall propound ſome objections againſt your making it a particular propoſition.
1. When you ſay Cuſtome is the only rule of Decency, you ſpeak of Cuſtome either formally or materially; if you ſpeak of Cuſtome formally and reduplicativè as Cuſtome, why then every Cuſtome is a rule of Decency, becauſe à quatenus ad de omni valet conſequentia, that which doth agree to a thing as ſuch, doth agree to every ſingular contained under it: but if you ſpeak of Cuſtome only materially, and your meaning be, that Cuſtome ſub tali formali under ſuch a conſideration or qualification, is the only rule of Decency, why then this formale, this conſideration or qualification of Cuſtome, may, with farre better reaſon, be ſaid to bee the importance of the Apoſiles foreign, then according unto Cuſtome, becauſe Cuſtome will be but the materiale in the rule of Decency.
2. Untill you expréſſe how thoſe ſome Cuſtomes may be qualified, that you make to be the onelyonly rule of Decency, your interpretation of the Apoſtles words, Let all things be done decently, will be very obſcure, explicatio ignoti, if not per ignotius, yet per aequè ignotum, and your proof that you bring for your Expoſition will be as dark and doubtſome: Thus both will runne, Let all things be done according to ſome cuſtomes, becauſe ſome cuſtomes are the only rule in ſome things of ſome decency, whether that which you call the clear importance of the place, do not leave the Reader in an uncertainty, be you your ſelf judge.
3. The quantity of indefinite propoſitions may be gathered from their matter; in a neceſſary matter they are univerſal, in a contingent, particular: Now I demand whether to be the rule of decency be predicated of cuſtome neceſſarily or contingently? if neceſſarily, then cuſtome cannot but be the rule of decency, and then all cuſtome is a rule of decency: A neceſſary propoſition that is affirmative, direct, natural, where ſuperius praedicatur de inferiori, or aequale de inaequali, is alſo de omni: if it be predicated of it contingently, then cuſtome may bee, and may not be a rule of decency, and then I deſire you to evidence unto us how cuſtomes being thus a rule of decency, viz. contingently, will be a ſolid proof, that the clear importance of the Apoſtles words, Let all things bee done decently, is, let all things be done according unto cuſtome? and your beſt and ſpeedieſt way to clear this unto us, will bee by reducing your argument into a Syllogiſme.
4. If to be a rule of decencie be predicated contingently of cuſtome, then cuſtome is onelyonly a fallible rule of decencie, and therefore it needs regulation by a higher rule; and if there be in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip a higher rule then cuſtome, it will hereupon inevitably follow, that cuſtome is not in them the onelyonly rule of decency.
5. You implyedly give us the Character of thoſe Cuſtomes which you affirm to be the only rule of decency, when you ſay, that of ſuch undecent cuſtoms it is not pretended, that 'tis either only, or at all the rule of decency: Now all cuſtoms, in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, are either decent or undecent: the Cuſtome that is undecent is not at all a rule of decency, and therefore your poſition is to be underſtood of that Cuſtome which is decent: for betwixt decent and undecent cuſtomes in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice there is no medium, as I have ſhewed already: the upſhot of your meaning then is, that ſome Cuſtomes, viz. ſuch as are decent, are the onelyonly rule of decency, &c. What ſobrietie is in this limitation will appeare, if we will conſider that herein we have a twofold decency: one in the rule, decent cuſtomes; another in the thing, regulated decency: The former is different from, and antecedent unto the latter: now of the former decency, in the rule, in cuſtome it ſelf, I demand, What is the rule of that decency, whether custome it ſelf, or ſome other thing? I preſume you will not ſay Cuſtome it ſelf; for then it would be an underived, unſubordinate, and independent rule, a rule of it ſelfe: and if you ſhould ſay that ſome other thing beſides cuſtome is the rule of the decency which is in cuſtome, th… by conformity unto this, we muſt judge of the decency of Cuſtomes in the Ceremonies of Gods worſhip, whether they be decent or undecent? and from this it is obvious to inferre, that in Ceremonies there is a rule of decency antecedent unto Cuſtome, by which Cuſtome it ſelf is to be regulated and meaſured; and therefore Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of Decency. Your limitation then is ſo farre from being any ſupport unto your poſition, as that it giveth unto it a plain overthrow.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 42.
His laſt argument [becauſe there is decency in the firſt uſage of ſome things] falls upon that mistake of my words which I diſcourſed of, and cleared at the beginning; for I never ſaid that a thing muſt be caſtomary, before it is decent in any kind: (knowing unqueſtionably that there is a naturall 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 doe allow to be reverentiall among them; or, in yet plainer words, the civil cuſtomes of any nation, by which this or that ſort of geſture is rendered a token of reverence, are the onelyonly rule, by which the decency of indifferent geſtures, &c. is to be judged of, in order to Gods ſervice. And ſo much for the laſt argument alſo, and conſequently for the firſt part of his exception, that againſt my interpretation of foreign decently.
Jeanes.
You talke indeed, Section the ninth, of ſuch a miſtake of your words, but prove it not. Now to prevent all miſtakes, I ſhall come up unto your limitation: Cuſtome is not the onelyonly rule of all decency in the Ceremonies of Gods ſervice, wherein God and Nature have preſcribed nothing particularly: Verbi gratiâ, in the Surplice and Croſſe: For your Principles I ſuppoſe will lead you to aſſert the decency of the firſt uſage of the Croſſe in Baptiſme, and of the Surplice in Preaching and Praying; and indeed if the firſt uſage of theſe Ceremonies was undecent, it was ſinfull: and beſides, this decency was not a natural decency, dictated by the Law of Nature, as you your ſelf will confeſſe; but now if there were a decency in the firſt uſage of theſe Ceremonies, Cuſtome was not, could not be rule thereof, becauſe, as I declared out of Ariſtotle and Aquinas, the frequent uſage of a thing is required unto Cuſtome.
For concluſion of this firſt part of mine exception, I ſhall intreat the Reader to take notice of the definition of Cuſtome, uſually quoted out of Iſiodore: Conſuetudo eſt jus quoddam moribus inſtitutum quod pro lege ſuſcipitur cum lex deficit. By this definition, Cuſtome hath not the force of a Law, but where the Law is defective, and the Word, the Law of God is not defective in appointing religious mystical Ceremonies, for 'tis ſo ſufficiently profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for inſtruction in righteouſneſſe, as that the man of God may thereby be perfected, throughly furniſhed unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. I ſhall the efore conclude that Cuſtome doth not, cannot oblige unto any religious, myſtical Ceremonies, beſides thoſe which God hath inſtituted in his Word.