The Def. his answer was so set down, that (by the Rej. his own confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessary) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by ⟨p. 367⟩abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Proposition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an absolute, but a convenient necessity, the Assumption is false, which saith: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Here we have three distinctions, betwixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evil in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are considered as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be either cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joints) whereas they were never members jointed to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are considered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) only convenient. 2. For the first, it is well known that they are clouts, which have lien upon the plague-soars of Idolaters, many hundreds of years: and what wise Physician, or Surgeon, was ever known, to go about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a mere affectation of casting a mist before the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, hold our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawful in their nature, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise merely indifferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are here, ⟨p. 368⟩only in a blind distinction, (as it were in a parenthesis) affirmed to be of convenient use in our Church. Now let any man consider of this dealing, whether it be not more necessary for the Def. and Rej. then convenient for the Reader. In the Abridgement, pag. 42. and 43. &c. it is largely proved, that these Ceremonies in controversy, are not convenient. The Def.
The Def. his answer was so set downe, that (by the Rej. his owne confession) no sense could be discerned in it. But the said Rej. (after three patchings of the words, and the distinctions, about abolishing, abused, and necessary) bringeth, for account, this answer, out of all: If by ⟨p. 367⟩abolition, be meant, Abscission, and not Cure, the Proposition being meant of things indifferent, is false. But if in the exception, of things, necessary, be meant not an absolute, but a convenient necessitie, the Assumption is false, which sayth: that our Ceremonies are of no necessary use in the Church. Heere we have three distinctions, betwixt 1. abscission, or cutting off, and curing; 2. things evill in their nature, and indifferent: 3. necessity absolute, and convenient. Now 1. see how they agree among themselves: In the first, the Ceremonies are considered as members of our Religion, or worship, which must be eyther cut off or cured (for so the Def. explaineth it of cutting off the members by the joynts) whereas they were never members joynted to our religion, or worship, but to the Harlot of Rome. In the second, they are considered as no members, but things indifferent; and in the third (at the best) onely convenient. 2. For the first, it is well knowne that they are cloutes, which have lien vpon the plague-soares of Idolaters, many hundreds of yeares: and what wise Physition, or Surgeon, was ever knowne, to goe about the curing of such clouts? 3. For the second, it is a meere affectation of casting a myst before the Readers eyes. For both the Def. and Rei. knew well, that the Authors of this Argument, holde our Ceremonies not indifferent, but unlawfull in their nature, and yet upon supposed indifferency, undertake to make good their Proposition; as having all sense on their side, namely, that things otherwise meerely indifferent, receive some difference, by their notorious abuse to Idolatry. 4. For the last, The Ceremonies are heere, ⟨p. 368⟩onely in a blinde distinction, (as it were in a parenthesis) affirmed to be of convenient use in our Church. Now let any man consider of this dealing, whether it be not more necessary for the Def. and Rej. then convenient for the Reader. In the Abridgement, pag. 42. and 43. &c. it is largely prooved, that these Ceremonies in controversie, are not convenient. The Def.
