Uniformity in Human Doctrinal Ceremonies, hammond 1 – hammond 2
UNIFORMITY IN Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies Ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40. OR, A REPLY UNTO Dr. HAMMONDS VINDICATION OF HIS Grounds of Ʋniformity from the 1 Cor. 14.40.
BY HENRY JEANES, Miniſter of Gods Word at CHEDZOY.
OXFORD, Printed by A. Lichfield Printer to the Univerſitie, for Tho. Robinſon, 1660.
Uniformity in Humane Doctrinall Ceremonies ungrounded on 1 Cor. 14.40.
Dr. HAMMOND.
1 Cor. 14.40.
foreign.
Decently, and according to appointment.
1. SInce the publiſhing that Anſwer to Mr. J. concerning the degrees of ardency in Chriſts Prayer, I am advertiſed of another paſſage in that volume, in which I am concerned, relating to ſome words of mine in the view of the Directory, pag. 19. on the head of Uniformity in Gods Service, and particularly reſpecting my rendring of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 14.40. Let all things be done foreign.
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 implyed in foreign, decently (cuſtome being the onelyonly rule of decency, &c.) and of the latter, becauſe the words do literally import this, foreign, i. e. according to order or appointment.
3. To the former of theſe he makes his firſt exception, thus, [he dares not affirme that this is the immediate ſenſe of the place, but onelyonly that it is implyed; it cannot be denyed, but that decency doth imply ſuch customes, the omiſſion of which doth neceſſarily infer indecency; but that the omiſſion of ſuch Ceremonies as ours, doth infer indecency, the Doctor and all his party can never make good: What undecencie can the Doctor prove to be in the administration of Baptiſm without the Croſſe; as alſo in publique 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; untill 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 onelyonly rule of decency.
This Propoſition, though very strange, is proofleſſe; and therefore we might as well reject it, as the Doctor dictates it. But I ſhall adde a confutation of it, from theſe following arguments.
1. If cuſtome be the only rule of decency, then nothing elſe can be a rule thereof beſides cuſtomes, but this is falſe; for the light and law of Nature, is alſo a rule thereof, … that infallible.
2. Nothing can be undecent, that is agreeable unto the onelyonly rule of decency but divers things are undecent, which yet can plead custome; and this is ſo evident, as that I will not ſo much undervalue the Doctors judgement, as to endeavour any proofs thereof. It is impoſſible that the onelyonly 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 only 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 handſomneſſe in the firſt uſage of a thing; and of this decency cuſtome is not the rule, and therefore it is not the only rule of decency.
4. The first thing here charged on me, is timidity, that I dare not ſay what I ſaid not, and this attended with a conceſſion (in a limited ſenſe) of the truth of what I did ſay; the ſecond is the impertinence or unſufficiency of that, in that limited ſenſe, to prove what he conceives I would have from it, viz. that the omiſſion of our ceremonies doth inferre indecency: And the proof of this charge twofold, 1. by way of queſtion, founded in two inſtances, the Croſſe in Baptiſm, and the Surplice in publique Prayer, and Preaching: 2. By reference to Ames, and reſolving to think his arguments conſiderable, till a ſatisfactory anſwer be given them. And his third charge, is my uſing an unſufficient proof to prove my interpretation, viz. this, [becauſe cuſtome is the onelyonly rule of decency] which he confutes by three arguments.
Theſe three charges I ſhall now very breifly examine, and, if I miſtake not, clearly evacuate. The firſt by aſsuring him, 1. that I did dare to ſay, and indeed ſaid (as I then thought perspicuouſly) the full of what I meant; but that it was no way incumbent on me, to ſay either what I did not mean, or what Mr. J. or any other ſhould be juſtly able to charge of want of truth in the leaſt degree. And 2. if what I ſaid cannot, as he confeſſes, be denied, to have truth in it in one ſenſe, I demand why muſt it be a not daring (which is wont to ſignifie timidity or cowardiſe) that I affirmed it not in another ſenſe, wherein he doth not conſent to it.
Jeanes.
The not daring of a thing proceeds from, not only timidity, but alſo from conſcience and ſhame: When we ſay of men in controverſal writings, that they dare not affirm ſuch and ſuch errours, we do not reproach them with cowardiſe, unleſſe he be a coward that is afraid, or aſhamed to deliver an untruth. That according unto cuſtome is the immediate ſenſe of foreign, is a very groſs & evident falſhood; & when I ſaid that you dared not to affirm it, my meaning plainly was, that your conſcience or ſhame kept you from ſuch an affirmation, and what wrong I have herein done you I am yet to ſeek.
If you demand why I ſay that, you dare not ſay what you ſaid not?
I anſwer, I have two reaſons for it:
1. In entrance into this diſpute, I did, as is uſual in Controverſies, premiſe what I took for uncontroverted on both ſides. 1. for your part, I thought you would not deny, but that the immediate ſenſe of foreign was not according unto cuſtome; and then, I propounded for my owne part what I granted.
2. Though in Charity I judge, that you dare not ſay, that according unto cuſtome, is the immediate ſenſe of foreign, yet I muſt needs tell you, that by your opinion it is incumbent upon you to ſay as much, and that I thus prove: You ſay that according to cuſtome is the importance of foreign, that is, the adequate and full importance of it, for that you ſhould ſo trifle, as to ſay, that you meant, it is onelyonly the partiall, and inadequate importance of it, I will not ſo much as imagine: But now, if it be not the expreſſe, and immediate ſenſe of the word, but onelyonly implyed therein, as drawn there-from, as a ſequele or inference; by way of deduction or conſequence, it may onelyonly be a part or peice of the importance therof: to prove then, that 'tis the full and adequate importance of the word, you muſt make good, that it is the immediate ſenſe of it.
Dr. Hammond. ſect. 6.
To make ſhort, and prevent all poſſibilitie of his, or any mans farther miſtaking my words, I ſhall hasten to tell him the full of my meaning in that paſſage, that (foreign decently) implies (according to cuſtome) viz. that in ſuch things as theſe, of which then I ſpake, geſtures, habits, and the like circumſtances of Gods publique ſervice, wherein the Apoſtle preſcribes care of decency, 'tis neceſſary to obſerve the cuſtom, of the place wherein we live.