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…

SECT. VII.

Here is promised a confutation of the proposition, viz. of this assertion, all will-worship whatsoever is to be condemned, and to that purpose he bringeth forth again his Magna Charta, Let all things be done in order. But I think that plea is sufficiently confuted. In the next place he produceth or rather as the fellow said once, seduceth 2 witnesses, Ursine and Zanchie. But believe me, when I looked upon the places which he allegeth out of them, I could not but lift up my heart unto God, and say, O Lord, how can such conceited confidence fasten on a man that regardeth either conscience or credit? How dare mortal men upon such grounds as these, obtrude the conception of their brains upon thy▪ Churches? Ursine (saith the Def.) hath catechised them well. True: but our proud Prelates for the most part, do scorn not only that, but all other catechisms, except for fashion sake, that which beginneth with What is your name? and though I do not account this Def. in that number, yet I may safely say, that he never well considered whom or what he cited out of Ursine. All that he bringeth, is out of the commentary on q. 96. ob. 3. & 5. as it is set down by Pareus. Now before objections be brought, it is fit and ⟨p. 22⟩usual that the Thesis or sentence be set down against which those objections fight; and no wise man will take up an answer made to an objection, before he considereth the assertion against which that objection is made. See then what the assertion of Ursine is: Ipsae ceremoniae (Ecclesiasticae sc. quae ab hominibus praecipiuntur) non modo cultus Dei non sunt: sedetiam conscientias non obligant, &c. the very same thing which we here maintain, viz. that no lawful ceremonies appointed by man, are the worship of God. Except therefore Ecclesiastical ceremonies be therefore the worship of God, because they be not the worship of God, the Def. had no reason to allege this place of Ursin in this question: and so just it is in the words here alleged out of the answer to the third objection, those things which serve accidentally to the glory of God, are not the worship of God. And to the 4. obj. By these examples will-worship is not established. And to the 5. obj. Indifferent things (being done of faith) please God otherwise then the worship of God properly so called. Is it possible that any thing should be concluded from hence for vvill-worship?