A19142:1217
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.
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.
3. Because the Def. proved nothing to the purpose, about this Gesture, he was required to prove it significative of some spirituall dutie: For it was in probabilitie onely a common signe of subjection, as well out of an oath, as in it, without any respect unto Christ. The Rejoynder in stead of a proof, sayth, that some Ancient and Later Writers doe so conceit. And if the Def. and he also doe conceit it so, we doe not strive with them, about that: but mens conceits are no great proofs. He addeth 2. that if it were a signe of subjection yet might it be significant of a spirituall dutie. But may be, and might be, is no proof.
He subjoineth 3. that it was a common sign used in solemnity of that kind, as well out of an oath, as in it; this (saith he) is barely and boldly affirmed, & implieth a contradiction, as importing other solemnities without an oath, of the same kind with thi•, wherein was an oath. Now for bareness, or boldness, of a probable conjecture, by way of answer, it should not be objected by him that bringeth mere conceits and might bees, for proving Arguments. ⟨p. 307⟩And as for contradiction, if he had repeated the word subjection, then he might have discerned signs of that kind, as well without, as with an oath. By the noting of this also he may see how the Replier herein agreed with Calvin. For no Gesture of subjection to a superior man, is wont to be proper unto subjection signified in time of swearing.