A second part of The mixture of scholasticall divinity, with practical, in several tractates: wherein some of the most difficult knots in divinity are untyed, many dark places of Scripture cleared, sundry heresies and errors refuted ... Whereunto are annexed, several letters of the same author, and Dr. Jeremy Taylor, concerning Original Sin. Together with a reply unto Dr. Hammonds vindication of his grounds of uniformity from 1 Cor. 14.40. By Henry Jeanes, minister of Gods Word at Chedzoy in Somersetshire.

Jeanes.

Natural decency is a branch, nay the principal branch of that decency comman∣ded by the Apostle, and therefore I could not think it excluded by you; but withal, I must conclude your interpretation of the Apostle, to be very 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and defective, when you said the clear importance of the Apostles words was, Let all things be done according to custome; I was so foolish to suppose that you meant this clear importance of the Apostles words, was also the full im∣portance of them, neither can you assign any reason, why I should think other∣wise.

But that, I see, which so much stumbleth you, is the word necessarily, concer∣ning which I hope you are satisfied by what I have already said, and therefore I shall only adde this one thing, that necessarily hath two acceptions.

• 1. In regard of an absolute necessity.
• 2. In respect of an Hypothetical necessity arising from some extrinsecal circumstance or condition. Now, I 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not restrain it unto either of these senses, but take it abstractively in such a latitude, as that 'tis appliable unto either of the significa∣tions

• according unto the nature of the things spoken of: the omission of natural 〈◊〉〈◊〉 infers undecency necessarily, in regard of an absolute necessity; the omissi∣on of civil undecency, insers undecency necessarily onely ex Hypothesi: and that inference of indecency which is only necessary ex Hypothesi, is more than an infe∣rence thereof, which is fallacious, or at the most but probable; and if we speak of this necessity, it is very false which you say, that that omission which thus necessarily inferres undecency, inferres it in all that ever did, or shall omit it.

But you say that, we know in Logick, that no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which is not de omni true in the whole species of all and every one.

Unto which I answer, that he who hath any tolerable knowledge in 〈◊〉〈◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that what you say is to be limited onely unto that necessity which is sci∣entifical and demonstrative; for to say nothing of such propositions as are necessa∣ry onely hypothetically, there are divers propositions absolutely in themselves 〈◊〉〈◊〉, setting aside all outward circumstances and conditions, which are not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 de omni.

• 1. I shall instance in divers particular propositions, as, Quaedam 〈◊〉〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉〈◊〉: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corpus est mixtum.
• 2. In several negative propositions, as, nullus spiritus est corpus: nullus lapis est 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Now these are necessary propositions, because of an immutable truth, and they are not de omni: For,

1. A particular proposition is not de omni, but de aliquo: And then 2. a ne∣gative proposition is not de omni; for de omni is opposed unto that which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 de nullo.