A19142:905
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. The 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as containing nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omission (saith the Rejoinder) was for advantage, because (forsooth) here the Def. his assertion was clearly set down, namely, that our Ceremonies are not imposed, or observed, as proper, essential and necessary parts of Gods worship.
1. THe 8. section was neglected by the Repl. as conteyning nothing but affirmation on one side, and negation on the other. This omission (sayth the Rejoynder) was for advantage, because (forsooth) here the Def. his assertion was clearly set downe, namely, that our Ceremonies are not imposed, or observed, as proper, essentiall and necessarie parts of Gods worship.
But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred several places, before, and after, little reason had the Rejoinder to suspect advantageous craft, in passing by the same terms in this one place. 2. There is no clearness at all in heaping up terms, without any explication of them. 3. When these terms, proper, essential, necessary worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurd, that it was for his advantage, ⟨p. 159⟩if they were omitted. For what answer is this: men appointing Ceremonies of their own making, do not say that they are specially appointed of God?
But 1, If this had been a clear explication, yet seeing we meet with it, and handle it in a hundred severall places, before, and after, litle reason had the Rejoynder to suspect advantagious craft, in passing by the same termes in this one place. 2. Ther is no clearnesse at all in heaping up termes, without any explication of them. 3. When these termes, proper, essentiall, necessarie worship are now expounded, by the Rejoinder to mean nothing else but worship specially commanded of God, the sense is so absurde, that it was for his advantage, ⟨p. 159⟩