A19178:106
A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…
A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, cross in baptism, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramental elements of bread and wine.A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, crosse in baptisme, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramentall elements of bread and wine.
Amsterdam: printed by Giles Thorp, 1622
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.
SECT. VI.
Here come the judgment of Protestants to be examined concerning this question, Whether all parts of Divine worship invented by man be not to be condemned? Where first the Defendant bringeth forth his wedge again, distinguishing betwixt essential, and accidental worship as before: but in other phrases; ⟨p. 19⟩for now he telleth us, that essential worship is that wherein i• placed […] opinion of Justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity and accidental is any ri•e, which serveth for the more consonant and convenient discharge of that essential worship. But these are but words. For 1. worship doth not vary according to mens opinion: but consisteth in the nature of the action it self. Otherwise a man may go to Mass, conceiving a private opinion to himself, that he doth it not for justice, sanctity, efficacy, or divine necessity, but for some other cause. Or at the least a convocation house may appoint us the grossest of all the ceremonies in Popery, and set another opinion upon it▪ 2. Sanctity cannot be separated wholly from such ceremonies which are proper unto religion. i. appropriated unto religious persons, actions, and purposes only, in the solemn worship of God. For they must either be holy, or civill, or profane. But civill they are not; for then the bare omission of them would argue rudeness and incivility: nor profane, I hope, in the Def. opinion: therefore they must needs be holy. 3. There is no judicious Divine that useth to call circumstances of mere order and decency, worship. Where did the Def. ever read that a pulpit, or a table, or a fair cloth, &c. was pronounced or styled worship?
HEere come the judgment of Protestants to be examined concerning this question, Whether all parts of Divine worship invented by man be not to be condemned? Where first the Defendant bringeth forth his wedge again, distinguishing betwixt essentiall, and accidentall worship as before: but in other phrases; ⟨p. 19⟩