A19142:1584
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. 25.26.27.28. Concerning the Defender his Reasons.
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.
1. The Def. his first reason (by the Rejoinder his interpretation) is, that by our assertion, the Church shall loose a part of her Christian liberty: because if she may not use human Ceremonies a•used unto Idolatry and superstition, she may use none at all. Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion, being understood of human significant Ceremonies. And thereto the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that there is the same reason of all other Ceremonies; and that one Did•clave doeth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper, though he confess it to be a human significant Ceremony. But both these answers are void of trueth. For Circumstances of Order and Decency ▪ which are sometime called Ceremonies, and here understood, are neither mere human institutions, nor unnecessary (which is part of the question) but commanded of God, as often hath been showed. Neither doeth Didoclave any where confess Sitting at the Lords Supper, to be a human Ceremony. 2. It seemeth very strange to me, that appointing & using of human significant unnecessary Ceremonies, notoriously known to have been, and be abused unto Idolatry, should be fetched from Christian Liberty.
1. THe Def. his first reason (by the Rejoynder his interpretation) is, that by our assertion, the Church shall loose a part of her Christian liberty: because if she may not use human Ceremonies a•used unto Idolatry and superstition, she may use none at all. Now 1. The Replier granted the conclusion, being understood of human significant Ceremonies. And thereto the Rej. opposeth nothing, but that there is the same reason of all other Ceremonies; and that one Did•clave doeth not grant this of sitting at the Lords Supper, though he confesse it to be a human significant Ceremonie. But both these answers are voyd of trueth. For Circumstances of Order and Decencie ▪ which are sometime called Ceremonies, and heer understood, are neyther meer human institutions, nor unnecessarie (which is part of the quaestion) but commanded of God, as often hath been shewed. Neyther doeth Didoclave any where confesse Sitting at the Lords Supper, to be a human Ceremonie. 2. It seemeth very strange to me, that appointing & using of human significant unnecessarie Ceremonies, notoriously knowen to have been, and be abused unto Idolatrie, should be fetched from Christian Libertie.