A19142:1195
A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D.…A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D.…
A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's worship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgess his rejoinder for D. Morton The first partA fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgesse his rejoinder for D. Morton The first part
Amsterdam: printed by the successors of Giles Thorp, 1633
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Wherein whosoever will but look upon the Defender his own words, even now quoted, must needs wonder, what subtle difference the Rejoinder can conceive betwixt his formal words as only making mindful, it is Christian, but not as operative: and that sense which he denieth. 5. Because both the Defender and Rejoinder do make so much of operative virtue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water, for ⟨p. 294⟩cleansing from venial sins, as that therein they place all the Popery and fault of it: let them know, that diverse of the best learned among them do flatly deny it. As Estius in 4. pag. 14. Some speak improbably, that Holy Water Conferreth remission of venial sin, only by the deed done. 1Vasquez in 3. disp. 128. cap. 5. ar. 4. Sacramentals do not work remission of venial sin, nor were instituted for any such end, but to stir up the mind to abandon them. Now as for necessity, 2wherewith the Rejoinder would put off Calvin: Bellarmin himselfe (de Pontif. l. 4. c. 18.) answereth: It is an admonition or holy institution only without any obligation to a fault if it be omitted. 3They sin not who (without contempt) do not Sprinkle themselves with Holy Water, when they enter the Church. Junius his words are so full and plain, that they admit no answer: no humane ordination can make it good. 6. The Rep. conclusion: that such sprinkling of water as the Def. alloweth, may perhaps be called Jewish: but not Christian, without taking Christs name in vain; cannot be eluded by the Rejoinder his comparatively Christian, no more then some uncleanness may be called Christian, in comparison of filthiness contrary to nature.
Wherin whosoever will but look upon the Defender his owne wordes, even now quoted, must needes wonder, what subtill difference the Rejoynder can conceyve betwixt his formall wordes as onely making mindfull, it is Christian, but not as operative: and that sense which he denieth. 5. Because both the Defender and Rejoynder doe make so muche of operative vertue ascribed by the Popish Doctors unto Holy Water, for ⟨p. 294⟩