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. X.

Here are many proofs conjoined under the name of M. Hy. and others: the answers to which are just such as the ceremonies be, merely formal, without essence or substance of truth.

HEre are many proofes conjoyned under the name of M. Hy. and others: the answers to which are just such as the ceremonies be, meerly formall, without essence or substance of truth.

The first is, ceremonies are imposed to breed an opinion of holiness, as M. Hooker affirmeth, p. 61. and therefore are parts of Gods worship. The consequence is not denied by the Def. not yet the antecedent directly: so that the whole argument seemeth to be granted, only the Def. saith, that Mr. Hooker did not ascribe operative holiness either by infusion or inhesion (which two ⟨p. 25⟩terms are unreasonably by him dis-joined) but only significative, as his words import. To which I answer, 1. that as the nice distinctions which are now used in the schools of Jesuits, do not help, but that Popish superstition is as gross as ever it was in practise: so this distinction of operative, infusion, inhesion, significative, doth nothing help, but the common people in many places inclined to superstition, do attribute as much holiness to some of these ceremonies, as they do to some holy ordinances of God. 2. The Patrons of our ceremonies, such as Mr. Hooker was, do attribute that holiness to the ceremonies which the Fathers did. Now that they ascribed operative holiness unto some of them, Mr. Parker hath made, plain in his book of the Cross, Part. 1. p. 77. 90 92. &c. 3. Mr. Hooker doth not here speak of reverence signified by the ceremonies, but of reverence to be signified towards them, as being things holy and worthy reverence. 4 What Mr. Hooker ascribed unto the cross, is to be seen in M. Parker, p. 91.