A19142:1655
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.
But say that the Archbishop of Corinth (for now I suppose such a one) had called his Convocation, and with consent of his Clergy had determined that men might, and for testifying of liberty should, at a certain time eat of such and such meats which men formerly doubted of: would not yet the Apostle have given the same direction he did? would not good Christians still have had care of their brothers consciences? Can the determination of a superior be a sufficient plea at the bar of Gods judgement seat, for a man that by virtue or force thereof alone, hath done any action that his conscience telleth him will scandalize his brother?
But say that the Archbishop of Corinth (for now I suppose such a one) had called his Convocation, and with consent of his Clergie had determined that men might, and for testifying of liberty should, at a certaine time eat of such and such meats which men formerly doubted of: would not yet the Apostle have given the same directiō he did? would not good Christiās still have had care of their brothers consciences? Can the determination of a superiour be a sufficient plea at the barre of Gods judgement seat, for a man that by vertue or force thereof alone, hath done any action that his conscience telleth him will scandalize his brother?
Lastly, I would fain know whether those superiors do not give a great scandal, which take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites which they know many good men will be scandalized by?
Lastly, I would faine know whether those superiours doe not give a great scandall, which take upon them determinately to impose unnecessary rites which they know many good men will be scandalized by?
The second notorious flaw which I find in the Defendant his subdivisions, is sect. 9. where he granteth that much indulgence indeed is to be used in things indifferent towards weak persons, whose infirmity proceedeth only from simple ignorance: but that only till such time as the doctrine concerning such things have been sufficiently declared: because a scandal doth always presuppose a mere