A19142:1016
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
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.
Neither is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the ⟨p. 202⟩reader in hand, but only for the observing, other proofs being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kind are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truly be interpreted so to impose them. To which the Rejoinder giveth no other proper answer, but only leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed end: and then misinterpreteth actions of this kind, as if they were meant of the special kind of things, and not of unnecessary actions known to be superstitiously abused.
Neyther is this observation brought in to prove imposing and observing, conjunctly, as they would bear the ⟨p. 202⟩reader in hād, but only for the observing, other proofes being added for the imposing. Yet it was observed by the Repl. that while actions of this kinde are superstitiously observed, they that still impose them in those places where they are so observed, may truely be interpreted so to impose them. To which the Rejoynder giveth no other proper answer, but onely leaving out the pith of that assertion, may be truly so interpreted, substituteth another; of a purposed ende: and then misinterpreteth actions of this kinde, as if they were meant of the speciall kinde of thinges, and not of unnecessarie actions known to be superstitiously abused.
It was also noted as ridiculous in the Def. that those people which think that Sacraments are not rightly administered, or received without the Ceremonies, are brought into that conceit by our condemning of the said Ceremonies. The Rejoinder answereth, that this condemning of them, must needs make some think that they are imposed as parts of religion, and so occasion the simple to think that we esteem them so.