CHAP. IIII.
SECT. I.
THis argument in the Abridgement, p. 17. standeth thus: It is contrary to Gods word to use (much more to command the use of) such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man hath devised, if they be notoriously knowen to have been of old, and still to be abused unto ido∣latry or superstition by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no ne∣cessarie use in the Church. But our ceremonies are such: Ergo.
The Defendants answer is very briefe: he dares not absolutely deny either part of the argument. Hee could not finde a fit distin∣ction whereupon to ground a conditionall deniall with reason: he contents himselfe therefore to make a shew of distinguishing af∣ter an unreasonable manner. For he doth not distinguish of any one tearme found in the argument: nor maketh the parts of his supposed distinction such as will beare any Logicall sence. If (sayth hee) you require such ceremonies to bee abolished, then wee deny your Major: but if you understand indifferent things, or meane an ab∣solute, not a convenient necessitie, wee deny your Assumption. If this and but if that, this forme of speech, as indeed, every distinction, implieth some dissention and segregation in the parts distingui∣shed. But here is no shew of any such thing, betwixt abolishing and indifferencie, or absolute necssitie. I know not what to make of such a confused distinction. It is as if one should say, If you require an establishing of the ceremonies, I deny one thing; but if you vnderstand convevient ceremonies, I deny another thing. Such kind of speaking is nothing else but non sence, or as some use to call it, a very bull. Let this generall answer therefore passe: though he sayth, that in it we may see our marks, and take our aime.