A19142:551
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.
I see not why all lawful rites ordained by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neither do I think our Hierarchy would take it well if they should be called Ceremonial Prelates: and Doctrinal for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so far, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinal, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremonial.
I see not why all lawfull rites ordeyned by men, may not as well be referred to both. Neyther doe I thinke our Hierarchie would take it well if they should be called Ceremoniall Prelates: and Doctrinall for the greatest part they are not found to be actively, nor can so be proved passively, so farr, as they differ from those ministers many of whom they will not suffer to be Doctrinall, because they cannot be at their pleasure Ceremoniall.
6. Concerning the rest of the third section, all that is rejoined, dependeth only upon the term mere Ceremonial Ceremonies. This term the Replier did not understand (as it seemeth) according to the Authors meaning; neither can the Rejoinder interpret it, but with such sense as was formerly declared. Mere Ceremonies are not only such as the Rejoinder p. 33. called single Ceremonies, for in the same place, he maketh significant rites, having relation to a further worship, such as ours are, double, or triple Ceremonies. So that this mere Ceremony can be nothing else, but a Ceremony which God hath not instituted for his worship: and so the Def. and Rejoinder maintain here only this assertion: those Ceremonies which God hath not instituted, are not instituted by God. Which is so evidently true, that it cannot escape the imputation of idleness, either to dispute for, or against it. Only this I note, ⟨p. 10⟩that by this distinction, God cannot appoint a mere Ceremony in his worship, though man can: for if God appoint any Ceremony, it is (eo ipso nomine) doctrinal, substantial, moral. No marvel therefore if God have not appointed mere Ceremonies, seeing he cannot appoint any such, but man only can do that.