A19142:651
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.
It is sufficient for our purpose, if it be a caution strictly to be observed in Ceremonies, for such a rule as is. Thou shall not murder.
It is sufficient for our purpose, if it be a caution strictly to be observed in Ceremonies, for suche a rule as is. Thou shall not murder.
2. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tend to the glory of God) is also rejected by the Rejoinder as the former. But no new reason is brought, but only that it is a common rule, not proper to Ceremonies, which in many words is enlarged. Now for this (being the same with that formerly objected about not scandalizing) the same answer which before was given is sufficient. Yet this moreover is to be observed for both these rules: that though they be not proper to Ceremonies, our Divines notwithstanding do usually apply these and such like general rules unto Ceremonies, because the breach of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane significant Ceremonies proper to religion, taken from Papists. They tend not in their nature to Gods glory, but rather to the glory of them from whom they have received their being. They are scandalous both to Protestants and Papists, as afterward is declared.
2. Another rule urged by T. C. (that Ceremonies tende to the glorie of God) is also rejected by the Rejoynder as the former. But no new reason is brought, but onely that it is a comon rule, not proper to Ceremonies, which in many words is inlarged. Now for this (being the same with that formerly objected about not scandalizing) the same answer which before was given is sufficient. Yet this moreover is to be observed for both these rules: that though they be not proper to Ceremonies, our Divines notwithstanding doe usually apply these and suche like generall rules unto Ceremonies, because the breache of these rules is common to (and as it seemeth inseparable from) humane significant Ceremonies proper to religion, taken from Papists. They tende not in their nature to Gods glorie, but rather to the glory of them from whom they have receyved their being. They are scandalous both to Protestants and Papists, as afterward is declared.