A19142:956
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.
This the Rejoinder excepteth against, and saith, in those terms there is no more disjunction, then in these love or charity, Magistrates, or Governors.
This the Rejoynder excepteth against, and sayth, in those termes ther is no more disjunction, then in these love or charitie, Magistrates, or Governours.
But he forgot the proper English note of disjunction, either, or.
But he forgotte the proper English note of disjunction, eyther, or.
Where did he ever read such a phrase: either love, or charity, either Magistrates, or Governors?
Where did he ever read suche a phraze: eyther love, or charitie, eyther Magistrates, or Governours?
It was also replied, that Mr. Hooker attributed operative holiness to the Cross, in allowing all that the Fathers ascribed to it. The Rejoinder his only material exception is, that the instance was here not of the Cross, but of the Surplice. Yet the question is of our Ceremonies, which is as well concluded from one, as another, and the Rejoinder himself, even now, spoke of holiness in them, as of many, not in it, as of one Ceremony only.