A19142:281
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.
Where he seemeth to expound that, which before he called a proper cause by a far differing term of a necessary cause: what should be the intention of this variation I cannot guess: It may be the Rej. forgot, that he was in giving of accurate rules, and so fell into a loose varying of phrases: So likewise in illustrating of this difference, in stead of part he nameth a substantial part, as distinguishing parts into substantial and accidental, of which ⟨p. 29⟩addition I cannot tell what to make: How ever this is no form or essential difference of a Cerem. from other actions. D. B. hath preached a thousand good sermons, in reference to his flock or people, yet I do not think, he esteemed them Cerem. of his hearers: This Paradox he enlargeth with many similitudes, and examples, I looked he should have alleged some scripture, from whence this might have been gathered or concluded: at the least adjoined some convicting argument, which might have cleared this so main point of his definition, or if none of those, that yet he would have showed some authority or author, who had so writ and spoke, but here is deep silence, and we must take all upon the Drs bare word, but by the Drs leave we are purposed to try his novelties and not to take them upon trust.
Where he seemeth to expound that, which before he called a proper cause by a farr differing terme of a necessary cause: what should be the intention of this variation I cannot guesse: It may be the Rej. forgot, that he was in giving of accurate rules, and so fell into a loose varying of phrases: So likewise in illustrating of this difference, in stead of part he nameth a substantiall part, as distinguishing parts into substantiall and accidentall, of which ⟨p. 29⟩addition I cannot tell what to make: How ever this is no forme or essentiall difference of a Cerem. from other actions. D. B. hath preached a thousand good sermons, in reference to his flock or people, yet I do not think, he esteemed them Cerem. of his hearers: This Paradoxe he enlargeth with many similitudes, and examples, I looked he should have alledged some scripture, from whence this might have beene gathered or concluded: at the least adjoyned some convicting argument, which might have cleared this so mayne poynt of his definition, or if none of those, that yet he would have shewed some authority or author, who had so writt and spoke, but here is deepe sylence, and we must take all upon the Drs bare word, but by the Drs leave we are purposed to trye his novellies and not to take them upon trust.