A19142:1277
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. 23.24.25.26. Concerning Love-Feasts.
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.
7. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answer of Mr. Nic. That these Love-feasts, were abrogated by the Apostles. From which he gathereth, that then they were not of divine institution. No say we, nor yet Apostolical. For it was only said before, that if they were of one, they were also of the other: but not positively that they were of either. So that the Defender forgot, when he inferred: So this second answer confuteth the first.
7. It is brought in by the Def. as a second answere of Mr. Nic. That these Love-feasts, were abrogated by the Apostles. From which he gathereth, that then they were not of divine institution. No say we, nor yet Apostolicall. For it was onely said before, that if they were of one, they were also of the other: but not positively that they were of either. So that the Defender forgot, when he inferred: So this second answer confuteth the first.
8. The third answer of the same Mr. Nic. was (as it is reported) that these Love-feasts were not of mystical signification, nor yet merely Ecclesiastical. And this the Replier undertook to maintain: because no signification was added unto their nature by any institution, so far as by any certain evidence can be declared.
8. The third answer of the same Mr. Nic. was (as it is reported) that these Love-feasts were not of mysticall signification, nor yet meerely Ecclesiasticall. And this the Replier undertooke to mainteyne: because no signification was added unto their nature by any institution, so farre as by any certeine evidence can be declared.
The Rejoinder opposeth, that the appropriating of their natural signification, to the signifying of Christian love, might be in that use, by Ordination. Where, First might be, is not a proof: and we require in an instance objected for an Argument, that it should be proved fitting. Secondly, Every Ordination doeth not infer mystical signification.