A19142:1479
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 4 › SECT. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20. Councels, and Ancient… › Kneeling.
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.
11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day, many words are spent by the Rejoinder. The sum is, that such fasting is there spoken of, as was performed out of an Heretical opinion, either of necessity so to do, or of contempt of the Lords-Day. But this cannot be proved. For there being divers different editions of that Council, none of them mention opinion of necessity: and in the ordinary greek copy, there is neither contempt, nor contumacy, named, as Binius noteth. Beside, opinions and contempts, as they are inward, cannot be noted by the Church. If they were outward, in word; then not so much the fasting upon opinion, as the opinion it self, was to be condemned. If the act it self was taken for a manifestation ⟨p. 451⟩of such an opinion, that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is laid upon the Replier, for relating the Defendant his answer, so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession, that is removed by the Defendant his own words, related by the Rejoinder, pag. 521. Contempt, to wit, of the Christian profession. See before, in Melchiades his decree.
11. About the Gangren forbidding fasting upon the Lords-Day, many words are spent by the Rejoynder. The summe is, that such fasting is there spoken of, as was performed out of an H•reticall opinion, either of necessity so to doe, or of contempt of the Lords-Day. But this cannot be prooved. For there being divers different editions of that Councell, none of them mention opinion of necessity: and in the ordinary greek copy, there is neither contempt, nor contumacy, named, as Binius noteth. Beside, opinions and contempts, as they are inward, cannot be noted by the Church. If they were outward, in word; then not so much the fasting upon opinion, as the opinion it selfe, was to be condemned. If the act it selfe was taken for a manifestation ⟨p. 451⟩of such an opinion, that is it which we urge As for that accusation which is layd upon the Replier, for relating the Defendant his answer, so as if he had referred the matter unto contempt of Christian profession, that is remooved by the Defendant his owne words, related by the Rejoynder, pag. 521. Contempt, to wit, of the Christian profession. See before, in Melchiades his decree.