A19142:792
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.
3. The third was, it supposeth contrary circumstances, ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution. Not so (saith the Rejoinder:) but only contrary fashions practised by several men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practising, not of incidental fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordaining, not of voluntary occasional election. If by variety of observing Festival days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of several men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses, ⟨p. 105⟩the Rejoinder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but boggling and scurrility. What would he have said, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotency.
3. The third was, it supposeth contrarie circumstanc•s, ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution. Not so (sayth the Rejoynder:) but onely cantrarie fashions practised by severall men, out of their election. Yet it seemeth to be for the most part so: because the question is of Ceremonies, and Ceremonious practising, not of incidentall fashions. Of institution, which the Def. calleth ordeyning, not of voluntarie occasionall election. If by varietie of observing Festivall days, and not observing them, was by the Def. understood of severall men, then in that part he was misunderstood by the Repl. Now upon these premisses, ⟨p. 105⟩the Rejoynder concludeth all the Repl. his answer to be nothing but bogling and scurrilitie. What would he have sayd, if one had accused him of setting up Diocesan, and Convocation omnipotencie.
It seemeth that (though he aboundeth in that faculty) he would have wanted reproachful words, to express his indignation of such an imputation.