A19142:881
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.
1. Here (for brevity sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all willworship, whatsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The Rejoinder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot mean this of words: because the verity and falsity of a proposition, doeth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot deny to be falsified. For humane Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship, must needs be worship proceeding from mans will, or will-worship. This therefore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The Rejoinder himself doeth, in the very next words, confess so much, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.
1. HEere (for brevitie sake) the question was repeated, in these words: whether all willworship, wh•tsoever, is to be condemned, or no. The Rejoynder upon this, first accuseth the Repl. of falsifying and changing the proposition. Now he cannot meane this of words: because the veritie and falsitie of a proposition, doeth not consist in words. And the sense he cannot denie to be falsified. For humane Ceremonies, imposed and observed as parts of Gods worship, must needs be worship proceeding from mans will, or will-worship. This therfore is but a blushing at the name of that which without blushing is defended. 2. The Rejoynder himself doeth, in the very next words, confesse so muche, when he professeth, that some will-worship is not condemned.
But I wonder from what good Divine he ever learned this assertion? The Papists are ordinarily charged by us for teaching, and practising of will-worship: yet diverse of them are ashamed to profess the defence of such a monster, in plain terms. ESTIVS upon the Epist. to the Col. Cap. 3. ult. disputing against some one ⟨p. 150⟩or two Jesuits, that had been forced to let fall such a speech, saith of them, as we say of the Rejoynder, Docere non poterunt [Greek or Hebrew] usquam accipi in bono. They can never show, that will-worship is taken in good sense, […] wed of and not condemned. All our Divines might here be opposed to these two Doctors opinions. But it shall suffice, to allege only two for the contrary, and they are Ursin, and Zanchie, whose authority are so much urged by the Def. and Rejoynd. in this section, Ursin in the place quoted by the Def. upon the 2. Commandment saith thus: All feigned worship is forbidden: all worship which is not of God,