Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	wonder_v	word_n	write_v	18	3	4.4422	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A19142	A fresh suit against human ceremonies in God's vvorship. Or a triplication unto. D. Burgesse his rejoinder for D. Morton The first part	Ames, William, 1576-1633.	1633 (1633)	STC 555; ESTC S100154	485,880	929

The reasons rendred by the Defendant for the Nicene prohibition of keeping Easter as the Iewes are three 1. Hatred of the Iewes 2. Because of the Iewes insultations 3. For uniformity Of the last it was Replied that uniformity might have beene if all could have beene drawne to the same time with the Iewes Which the Rejoynder confesseth to be true if they could have beene drawne thereto as well Where 1. He taketh it for granted that all were well drawne to the time determined the contrary whereof appeareth as in others so in our ancient Britons 2. Well or ill that is easily or hardly these make no difference in uniformity but onely in the meanes of accomplishing the same The other two reasons are sayd by the Replier to agree unto our Ceremonies because we are to hate the Idolatrous superstitions of the Papists with a perfect hatred and the Papists insult over us for borrowing our Ceremonies from them About this because it could not be denied the Rejoynder spendeth many words and phrazes partly Rhetorically good and partly Morally not good which I leave as I found because there is no doing with them but in greate leisure or in idle time In the conclusion it was asked by the Replier for what causes many other Ceremonies of the Papists were abolished if not for these two last named or if the same causes that abolished them would notsweep away these if it pleased them who have the beezoms in their hand About this the Rejoynder first referreth the Reader to a preface set before the Service-booke and I am contented he should seeke if he can finde any such reasons there Secondly he addeth that wee which have not the bezome in our hands should not shuffle abroad the dust with our feete No more doe we say I but onely keepe it out of our eyes and throates so well as we can giving reasons why the Sweepers should not thrust it upon us nor us for it out of the doores 11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day many words are spent by the Rejoynder The summe is that such fasting is there spoken of as was performed out of an H●reticall opinion either of necessity so to doe or of contempt of the Lords-Day But this cannot be prooved For there being divers different editions of that Councell none of them mention opinion of necessity and in the ordinary greek copy there is neither contempt nor contumacy named as Binius noteth Beside opinions and contempts as they are inward cannot be noted by the Church If they were outward in word then not so much the fasting upon opinion as the opinion it selfe was to be condemned If the act it selfe was taken for a manifestation of such an opinion that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is layd upon the Replier for relating the Defendant his answer so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession that is remooved by the Defendant his owne words related by the Rejoynder pag. 521. Contempt to wit of the Christian profession See before in Melchiades his decree 12. The Councell of Bracara forbad abstinence from flesh for avoyding of all suspicion in consenting to the Priscillian Hereticks This sayth the Rejoynder was in respect of inexpediency onely Let it be so yet 1. They that forbad it held it not lawfull to be commanded as our Ceremonies are 2. Inexpediencie or inconveniency of Ceremonies notoriously knowne to be Idolatrously abused maketh them unlawfull by the Defendant and Rejoynder their owne confessions in the first section of this chapter where convenient necessity is required to make them lawfull 13. Thrice dipping in Baptisme was condemned by a Councell of Toledo It was added in the Abridgement that Gregory alledged and approoved this decree and the Replier named Leo in stead of Gregory Heere the Rejoynder catcheth holde of the names of Gregorie and Leo and findeth matter for many words in the account of their lives not agreeing to the fourth Councell of Toledo where this was decreed Now the Replier was through haste mistaken as understanding the first Councell of that place for the fourth and the Authors of the Abridgement or their Scribes pen misplaced the word alledgeth because the Councell doeth alledge Gregory Te●●atur modus ille quom Gregorius primus definivit Tolet. 4 cap. 5. and not Gregory the Councell Let that manner be held which Gregory the first defined These are not stragling Souldiers such as formerly were taken from the Defendant as the Rejoynder spake but Souldiers boyes or Bedees upon whom little or nothing dependeth in the bartell Let them therefore goe or by exchange be dismissed Gregory hath the same sentence lib. 1. Epist. 41. and therefore approoved the decree of Toledo before it was there decreed For reall answer it is rejoyned 1. That all things forbidden are not condemned at unlawfull But yet by his leave whatsoever is forbidden lawfully and reasonably is held unlawfull upon some reason and therefore so farre condemned for unlawfull as it is lawfully forbidden Certainely in Lawes forbidding doeth as well imply some unlawfull evill as commanding doeth necessary good 2. The Rejoynder denyeth the Papist to make any superstitious construction of our use of the Crosse. But this is plaine enough and it commeth after to be handled yet in this place it is enough if they make a superstitious construction of the Crosse which we make use of though not of our use which the Rejoynder addeth that he might with some colour accuse the assertion of falshood More was not nor needed be affirmed by the Replier in this point 3. He pronounceth it a male volent calumniation that our owne Canons and Canonicall Imposters make a superstitious construction of it But this hath beene prooved before especially in the second Argument where it hath been convinced of will-worship 4. He formeth a new proposition and thereupon girdeth at sitting in the Lords-Supper which is not worth the answering All the rest of his words turne upon the loose hingel of inconveniency without any unlawfulnesse now often confuted This therefore shall suffize for this testimony and so I end the head of Fathers and Councels For Leo's words make not directlytothe purpose Concerning Protestant Divines This head was passed over by the Defendant but the Rejoynder undertaketh to cleare it wherein either his skill orhis confidence must needes occasion wondering 1. The generall Assembly of Scotland anno 1566. writ thus to the Bishops of England If Surplice Corner-Cap and Tippet have beene badges of Idolaters in the very act of Idolatry what have the Preachers of Christian liberty and the open Rebukers of superstition to doe with the dregs of the Romish Beast And in their Confession We detest all the Ceremonies and false doctrine of the Romish Antichrist added to the ministration of the true Sacraments we detest all his vaine Allegories Rites Signes and Traditions brought into the Church without or against the Word of God To

regard the whitenesse of his Ministers Surplice therby to thinke of his sanctitie any more then he is bounde to regard the fowlnesse and soile of it when for a longe time it is unwashed and he also useth it in stead of a handkerchif about his nose therby to thinke of the imperfection spots and blots which are founde in Ministers disposition and conversation Concerning Letters Characters and Giblets mentioned here againe by the Rejoynder answer was made before in the first section of this Chapter 8. To like purpose the Repl. used this reason If humane inventions be suche morall admonishers in spirituall duties then our consciences are bound to subject themselves to their admonitions and so to those mortall men who made them admonishers The Rejoynder his answer is like his former humane significant Ceremonies have no vertue of teaching the understanding or exciting the devotions of mē but only externall objects tending by their signification to those uses to the use of which the consciences of men are not bounde simplie but onely collaterally and for another thinge In which answer 1. ther is a strange mysterie confessed that humane Ceremonies are appointed to doe that whiche they have neyther antecedently nor consequently any vertue to doe 2. Externall objects are made opposite unto admonishers with vertue to admonish as if no externall objects as Baptisme administred to a childe before mine eyes had any vertue of admonishing 3. As strange a distinction is made betwixt simply and collaterally and betwixt simplie and for another thinge which are suche sustian stuffe that ther is no fear they should satisfie any but suche as take termes without reason● or right reason 9. Another reason of the Repliers was that every teaching signe of publicke use in the Churche ought often to be interpreted in preaching and also defended if they be called in question in the same preachinges which kinde of preaching upon Crosse and Surplice were very absurd especially in those Parishes that scarce have Quarter-Sermons The Rejoynder answereth 1. that the Crosse having interpretation with it need not be interpreted and that the Surplice signifieth he doeth not well know what but suche a thinge as may be soon taught Now that which he sayth of Crosse he may as well say of the Sacraments that because in their administration they have the interpretation goeing along with them therfore no Minister need muche preache of them But indeed ther is speciall need that the very interpretation which goeth alonge with the use of the Crosse should be well interpreted because few or none eyther of the people or of the Crossers themselves doe understand how it hath that signification which the Convocation hath layd upon it any more then any other toy which may easily be devized by the same Convocation as if they should put a straw into the childes hand in stead of a spear to signifie that he should manfully fight against all enimies of Christianitie And of the Surplices signification seing the Rejoynder himself is not yet certainly informed what it is ther must needs be great use of muche preaching about it first to declare certainly if it may be founde what it signifieth secondly to shew the ground of that signification or authoritie from whence it commeth lawfull and thirdly to urge it upon the consciences of those that are to make use of that signification His second answer is a bundle of phrases and so let it passe Onely let it be noted 1. that he calleth it furie to charge our Ceremonies of superstition and yet in sobrietie mainteyned before that those which count them unlawfull are superstitious brethren 2. that he determineth absolutely upon his refuted groundes that we have stopped our own mouths from preaching the Gospell by calumniations Wheras all England knoweth that those which never preached or writ against the Ceremonies have their mouthes stopped by his Prelates though they onely professe they cannot use them by reason of scandall of which number Doctor Burges himself hath been one 3. He would perswade the world that some of us place all religion in opposing Ceremonies by speaking and writing which is greater calumnie then any he charged us with or then he can prove of any one 4. He affirmeth us to be of all men he ever knew the most impatient of opposition and so most partiall and Pharisaically proude as if his Prelates were very patient toward those that oppose their Ceremonies no way so partiall nor drew any thinge from the Pharisies or as if himself in this Rejoynder had not shewed more of these vertues then any other 5. He sheweth where the store lieth in rooting of them out of the hearts of their people by clamours and calumnies We cannot then defend our practise but with clamours and calumnies nor answer for our hearts without rooting them out of peoples hearts 10. For the further manifestinge of the uselesse signification of our significant Ceremonies the Repl. appealed to the consciences of the best conforminge Christiansin England whether ever they founde themselves truly stirred up to holynesse by the Surplice or to constancie in fayth by the Crosse The Rejoynder answereth that no man is stirred up by them as by causes but onely as by the sight of the creatures or other memorialls of which use if men deprive themselves it is their prejudice or negligence Now of causes ther was no mention in the quaere And the question being made of the best conforming Christians amonge whome the Rejoynder himself is one prejudice and negligencie of some make up no answer The trueth is that he himself could not say out of his conscience that ever he felt suche motions within him by occasion of a Surplice or Crosse and therfore baulked the question Yet this is here to be observed that by the Rejoynder his confession our sacred Ceremonies are no more admonishers unto spirituall duties then any creature of God i. e. then any butterflie is And are not then our Ceremonies very sacred or religious Or is our representative Churches institution of any more force or worth then any childes that catcheth butter-flies 11. It was added also which by experience it is founde that in some one Congregation where these Ceremonies have not been used more holinesse and constancie of faith hath appeared then in many Cathedral Churches where they were never omitted The Rejoynder his answer is that where other helpes stand equall ther is no difference save onely in a Pharisticall opinion of those who counte their very opposition of Ceremonies an high poynt of devotion and stiffenesse therin constancie in the fayth Behold the man that even now complayned of clamours and calumnies The reasonable part of this answer is that in Cathedrall Churches other helpes as diligent preaching catechizing admonishing directing in Christian duties are not aequall or answerable to that which is founde in divers Congregations where the Ceremonies have not been used otherwise ther were no difference Now heerin 1. he confuteth himself