A19142:1218
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.
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.
He subjoigneth 3. that it was a common signe used in solemnitie of that kinde, as well out of an oath, as in it; this (sayth he) is barely and boldly affirmed, & implieth a contradiction, as importing other solemnities with•ut an oath, of the same kinde with thi•, wherin was an oath. Now for barenesse, or boldnesse, of a probable conjecture, by way of answer, it should not be objected by him that bringeth meer 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 signes of that kinde, as well without, as with an oath. By the noting of this also he may see how the Replier herin agreed with Calvin. For no Gesture of subjection to a superior man, is wonte to be proper unto subjection signified in time of swearing.
Neither is the Repliers observation (that as imposition of hands, in those parts, did always signify some superiority: so this underposi•ion of hands was, by proportion, fit to signify inferiority, or subjection) this I say was not a mere fiction, as the Rejoinder would have it. For, beside that the meaning was, of the usual imposing of hands in blessing, where the lesser is blessed of the greater, as Scripture teacheth: the Rejoinder hath brought but two examples, to infringe the generality of it