A19178:115
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. IX.
TO prove that our ceremonies are imposed and used as worship, this argument is brought: Those ceremonies which have the kind, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author to make them true w•rship, ⟨p. 23⟩those are in their imposition and use worship, and for want of a right author, are false wor•ip: but our ceremonies are such. Ergo.
TO proue that our ceremonies are imposed and used as vvorship, this argument is brought: Those ceremonies which haue the kinde, nature, and definition of worship belonging to them, so that they want nothing but a right author to make them true w•rship, ⟨p. 23⟩those are in their imposition and use worship, and for want of a right authour, are false wor•ip: but our ceremonies are such. Ergo.
The Def. his answer is, that this learning never saw print, as he thinketh, that the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship. 1. It may be that he never saw it in print: but I can witness, that Mr. William Bradshaw, a man that knew how to frame an argument in logical manner, as well as any Bishop in England, set this reason down in Print some 14 years since, in one edition (as I remember) of his treatise concerning indifferent things. But an answer to that treatise, or to this argument, was never yet seen in print, though that begging of the question be the chief ground of those invectives which are ordinarily used in Sermons and writings about these questions, viz. that they are things indifferent. This argument is also found in a treatise of the same authors, concerning Divine worship, printed 1604. 2. Though it had never seen the print before now, yet that doth not hinder, but it may be sound. For all sound reasons are not found in print. 3. There is none of our Divines that treateth of worship in general and particular, but hath for substance this learning, viz. that religious worship is that which is done to the honour of God: and if it be according to Gods commandment, then it is true; if not, then it is false. The Def. cannot name one of all that ever handled the common place of worship, that hath ot so taught, which if it be true, then the institution of God doth not alter the common nature of worship: 1. it doth not make that worship which otherwise being used to some end, and in the same manner, without Gods institution, were no worship at all.