A19142:720
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.
As for the Dignity of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicity, not with outward shows of dignity, invented by man. The woman's ordinary veil was more suitable to the dignity of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with gold, and precious stones.
As for the Dignitie of divine actions, that is best suited with mans reverent and humble simplicitie, not with outward shews of dignitie, invented by man. The womans ordinarie vaile was more suitable to the dignitie of Gods worship, then if she had adorned her self with golde, and pretious stones.
Pauls plain cloak was more suitable then the richest Cope in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shows of dignity, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable example of religious order, for the Council of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their mass Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.
Pauls plaine cloak was more suitable then the richest Coap in all Rome. If Order requireth outward shews of dignitie, then Rome, which is a confused Babel, may be to all Churches an imitable exāple of religious order, for the Councel of Trent sess. 22. professeth, their masse Ceremonies to be invented. That the Majesty of such a Sacrifice might be set out.
112. To show further that Order requireth not such Ceremony as ours, the notation of the word was brought in, signifying no such thing. Now the Rejoinder granteth that originally the word doeth not contain within the compass of it, such kind of Ceremonies, though by usage it may. Which is very true: but helpeth not, except the Def. or Rejoinder whose principal Argument is taken from this place, and only retorted by us, can prove, that in this place, the word order is extended beyond his original signification. He will not therefore stand with us, about the signification of the word in this place: let order (saith he) in this place signify no more then placing. But he maketh his retreat to the word Comeliness: asking if comeliness be nothing? I answer yes, it is some thing: but the Replier did not insist in that word, because he