A19142:1354
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.
SECT. 3. Concerning Pillars, Lev. 26.1. and the name Baal, Hos. 2.16.17.
1. IT was said by the Repl. that for preventing of an evasion, or stopping of a muse, the Abridgers added; that even such things are to be cast away, which had a good original, and use, (if they be not still necessary and commanded of God) when once they are found to be defiled by Idolatry, as Lev. 26.1. &c. To this the Rej. (abounding as it seemeth with leisure, and words) saith divers things in general, not worth much refutation. 1. He objecteth Tinkers-luck, because then all our Churches must down. But this Ting-tong shall not have the luck to stay us: because we hold our Churches commanded, in general, though not for their particular places and forms; which particularity was neither mentioned, nor meant in the Argument. 2. He seeketh more then one knot in that rush (necessary or commanded) as if in either sentence that particle or must needs be disjunctive, and not the same with and; which he himself will not affirm in his second thoughts. 3. He affirmeth some distinction to be betwixt things originally evil, and those that are successively evil: which we deny not; but only say, that distinction doth not make such a difference, as that therefore one should be ⟨p. 380⟩[…] ⟨p. 381⟩[…] ⟨p. 382⟩[…] ⟨p. 383⟩[…] ⟨p. 380⟩