A19142:621
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.
The first was, the bread and wine (the only things used in sopping) were ordained by Christ: so is not the Cross. The Rejoinder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save only, that they were ordained to be used apart. From whence it followeth only that it is unlawful to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptism must as well be used apart, or separated from the Cross: because it was ordained so to be used, and the Cross was not ordained for any religious use, either apart, or with other things.
The first was, the bread and wine (the onely things used in sopping) were ordeyned by Christ: so is not the Crosse. The Rejoynder answereth here nothing to the purpose, save onely, that they were ordeyned to be used apart. From whence it followeth onely that it is unlawfull to use them not apart. And so it followeth, that Baptisme must as well be used apart, orseparated from the Crosse: because it was ordeyned so to be used, and the Crosse was not ordeyned for any religious use, eyther apart, or with other thinges.
The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reason, Crossing hath none. The Rejoinder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordaining the Sacrament otherwise, hath done some thing not agreeable to reason, 2. Ergo the Church in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteen hundred year. And upon these grounds, he crieth out of madness. But so madness may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wits or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreeable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civill use, where the aerial Cross hath none. ⟨p. 39⟩Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawful for men to add to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments, then there would be found more probability of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, than a mystical aerial cross into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Church, it hath not universally used the cross so long, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Church.