A19142:622
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 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.
The second is, that sopping hath some agreement with reasō, Crossing hath none. The Rejoynder hence maketh two consequences: 1. Ergo Christ in ordeyning the Sacrament otherwise, hath doen some thing not agreable to reason, 2. Ergo the Churche in Crossing hath been void of all reason, fifteē hundred yeare. And upon these groundes, he crieth out of madnesse. But so madnesse may be found in any assertion, if it be first put out of the right wittes or sense, as this is. For the meaning was not, that Sopping is agreable to right reason in the Sacrament, but in civill use, where the aeriall Crosse hath none. ⟨p. 39⟩Yet▪ it may be added, if it were lawfull for men to adde to Gods ordinances in the Sacraments, then ther would be founde more probabilitie of reason to bring in sopping into the use of bread & wine as a manner of food, thē a mysticall aereall crosse into the use of water which is no manner of washing. As for the Churche, it hath not universally used the crosse so longe, except the Waldenses, and others like unto them, were none of the Churche.