A19142:213
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.
Chap. 4.
The vanity of the definition of a Cerem: discovered in the General: p: 22. Four things to be considered to make us conceive aright of a Cerem: p: 23. Things may be Ceremonies when they are not actually used, as a Surplice when it is not worn: p: 25▪ The contradiction of the Rej. in making a Cerem: an external action, and requiring a purposed observation notwithstanding in the use thereof. p: 26. Institution and purposed observation are not all one. pag: 26.27. An observation of an outward action, with a special aim or reference intended by the doer, is not required, to make up the nature of a Ceremony p: 27.28. The proper form of a Cerem: expressed in the definition, is fully discussed and found false: p: 29. How many w•yes reference may be taken p: 30.31. That reference to another, not as a cause or part of it to which it doth refer, cannot be the proper nature of a Cerem: p: 32.33. The true difference between substantial and Cerem: worship, p: 35.36. A thing may be a Cerem: being referred to that whereof it is a cause. p. 37. The 7. Consectary of the Rej: examined by the ⟨image 59⟩way: pag. 37. The second consectary examined, and found false: pag: 40. The 4. Consectary confuted pag. 42. The 6. consectary is examined, and found faulty. p. 42. The 8. consectary discussed and found false p. 43. In what sense it is true, that the same use and end makes a Cerem: part of worship p: 45. Reasons why the same use and end makes a Cerem: part of worship really p. 46.47.48. The 9. consectary opened: p. 50. Confuted & the contradictions in it discovered. p. 51.52.53.
The vanity of the difinition of a Cerem: discovered in the Generall: p: 22. Foure things to be considered to make vs conceave aright of a Cerem: p: 23. Things may be Ceremonyes when they are not actually vsed, as a Surplice when it is not worne: p: 25 The contradiction of the Rej. in making a Cerem: an externall action, and requiring a purposed observation notwithstanding in the vse thereof. p: 26. Institution and purposed observation are not all one. pag: 26.27. An observation of an outward action, with a special ayme or reference intended by the doer, is not required, to make vp the nature of a Ceremonie p: 27.28. The proper forme of a Cerem: expressed in the definition, is fully discussed and found false: p: 29. How many wyes reference may be taken p: 30.31. That reference to another, not as a cause or part of it to which it doth refer, cannot be the proper nature of a Cerem: p: 32.33. The true difference betweene sustantiall and Cerem: worship, p: 35.36. A thing may be a Cerem: being referred to that wherof it is a cause. p. 37. The 7. Consectary of the Rej: examined by the