A19142:617
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
Part › Chapter 1 › SECT. 15. Concerning Protestants arguing negatively from Scripture.
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.
To the other part of the question, the Rejoinder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Cross. 1. because the cross maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordain saying do this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptism, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumental sign of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroyed the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang down his ⟨p. 37⟩head, for asking such a question. But 1. Addition is as evil as alteration. For when Christ said, do this, he meant as well, do this only, as do this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum: as Zanchie expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by it self alone.
To the other part of the question, the Rejoynder answers that sopping of bread in wine is worse then the Crosse. 1. because the crosse maketh no alteration, of what Christ did ordayne saying doe this. 2. it is not substituted in the place of Baptisme, as sops in wine were by those Haerteikes in place of the Supper. 3. it is not esteemed an instrumentall signe of any grace given by the use of it, as they took their sops to be. 4. their sopping destroied the very Sacrament. And for these differences, the Repl. is bidden to hang downe his ⟨p. 37⟩head, for asking suche a quaestion. But 1. Addition is as evill as alteration. For when Christ sayd, doe this, he meant as well, doe this onely, as doe this all. Fac hoc totum: fac hoc tantum: as Zanchie expoundeth it. Addition also is some alteration, if not of the things instituted, yet of the institution, as making it unsufficient, or incomplete, by it self alone.
2. Sops and wine were not substituted in place of bread and wine, but were bread and wine. Neither were they first or only, or (for any thing appeareth) at all used by Heretics, as the Rejoinder for his advantage, without ground, avoucheth, but by ancient Churches, at least in some cases: as is manifest out of Prosper, de Promissionibus, Dimidium temporis, cap. 6. Puella particulam corporis Domini intinctam percepit, etc. Sopping was so far from being a matter of Heresy, that as it seemeth, it was received among the Fathers, so long as infants communicating in the Lords Supper, which was, as D. Morton confesseth, Appeal, lib. 2. cap. 13. sect. 3. for six hundred years.