A19142:1216
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 3 › SECT. 7. Concerning the Oath-gesture of Abrahams Servant.
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.
D. Jackson (in his Original of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doeth well ⟨p. 306⟩answer the Popish Proctors for Images, who allege as like, the Ceremony used in an oath: Particular oaths, given only for satisfaction of men, are not such proper acts of Gods service, as supplications, thanksgivings, and solemn vows are. The honour of God would be no whit l•sse, if the use or necessity of oaths among men, were n••e. In supplications, and thanksgivings, it is far otherwise, the more often & solemnly we praise God, or pray unto him, the more we honour him; because these are direct and immediate acts of his service, &c.
D. Iackson (in his Originall of unbelief, pag. 327. and 328.) by the difference given of the Replier, doeth well ⟨p. 306⟩answer the Popish Proctors for Images, who allege as like, the Ceremonie used in an oath: Particular oaths, given onely for satisfaction of men, are not suche proper acts of Gods service, as supplications, thanksgivings, and solemne vowes are. The honor of God would be no whit l•sse, if the use or necessitie of oaths among men, were n••e. In supplications, and thansgivings, it is far otherwise, the more often & solemnely we prayse God, or pray unto him, the more we honor him; because these are direct and immediat• acts of his service, &c.
3. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it significative of some spiritual duty: For it was in probability only a common sign of subjection, as well out of an oath, as in it, without any respect unto Christ. The Rejoinder in stead of a proof, saith, that some Ancient and Later Writers do so conceit. And if the Def. and he also do conceit it so, we do not strive with them, about that: but mens conceits are no great proofs. He addeth 2. that if it were a sign of subjection yet might it be significant of a spiritual duty. But may be, and might be, is no proof.