A19142:1343
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.
2. To Lev. 18.3.4, and 19.19.27. the Def. his answer ⟨p. 372⟩was (according to the Rejoinder his extraction) that these places do not prove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature, merely for the abuse of them to Idolatry, which was (saith he) the point to be proved: because cutting off the flesh for the d•ad was evil in it self; and sowing with divers seeds in one field, was forbidden for a typical document of that sincerity which God required in his people. Where 2. he mistaketh, or perverteth the question: which was not of things indifferent, but not necessary, nor of all things not necessary, but of Ceremonies. 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead, with a good meaning, nor was, nor is more evil in it self, then Circumcision, which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawful, under Prester John. pag. 285.3. That typical doctrine of sincerity, forbiddeth plainly all mixing of Idolaters relics, with Gods holy ordinances.
2. To Lev. 18.3.4, and 19.19.27. the Def. his answer ⟨p. 372⟩was (according to the Rejoynder his extraction) that these places doe not proove the abolishing of things indifferent in nature, meerely for the abuse of them to Idolatry, which was (saith he) the point to be prooved: because cutting off the flesh for the d•ad was evill in it selfe; and sowing with divers seeds in one field, was forbidden for a typica•l docum•nt of that syncerity which God required in his people. Where 2. he mistaketh, or perverteth the question: which was not of things indifferent, but not necessary, nor of all things not necessary, but of Ceremonies. 2. Cutting off the flesh for the dead, with a good meaning, nor was, nor is more evill in it selfe, then Circumcission, which both the Def. and Rej. allow as lawfull, under Prester Iohn. pag. 285.3. That typicall doctrine of syncerity, forbiddeth plainely all mixing of Idolaters reliques, with Gods holy ordinances.