A19142:603
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.
The Rejoinder here for resolution of this difficulty saith, that Tertullians meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though there be no particular word against it.
The Rejoynder here for resolution of this difficultie sayth, that Tertullians meaning was to account that not to be permitted by the word, against which any reasons out of the word may be given, though ther be no particular word against it.
Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was only what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that gloss, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word ⟨p. 32⟩against it, can have no reasons out of the word made against it. Such fustian is that clause of the Rejoinder, our meaning and his, are alike, and we hold our Ceremonies to be so perm•tted, and therefore not prohibited. So permitted is, by his interpretation, not to be prohibited by consequence, prohibited must needs be either the same, or else prohibited by particular word: if the former, then he saith thus: our Ceremonies are not prohibited by consequence: therefore they are not prohibited by consequence, if the later, then this is his saying: our Ceremonies are not forbidden by consequence only, therefore they are not by particular word forbidden. The former is no reason; the later neither is consequence, nor toucheth any question.
Now if he had attended unto the question, considering that it was onely what Tertullian in this place meant by this phrase not permitted, and that his meaning for the word must be the same, with that immediately before opposed: Quod non prohibetur ultro permissum est, he would not have given that glosse, for then the meaning of this sentence must be: that which hath no particular word