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…

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.

The first is, ceremonies are imposed to breed an opinion of holinesse, 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 vvhole argument seemeth to be granted, onely the Def. sayth, that Mr. Hooker did not asscribe operative holinesse either by infusion or inhesion (which two ⟨p. 25⟩tearms are vnreasonably by him dis-ioyned) but onely significatiue, as his words import. To which I answer, 1. that as the nice distinctions vvhich are now used in the schooles of Iesuits, do not help, but that Popish superstition is as grosse as ever it was in practise: so this distinction of operatiue, infusion, inhaesion, significatiue, doth nothing helpe, but the common people in many places inclined to superstition, doe attribute as much holinesse to some of these ceremonies, as they doe to some holy ordinances of God. 2. The Patrones of our ceremonies, such as Mr. Hooker vvas, doe attribute that holinesse to the ceremonies vvhich the Fathers did. Now that they asscribed operatiue holinesse unto some of them, Mr. Parker hath made, plaine in his booke of the Crosse, Part. 1. p. 77. 90 92. &c. 3. Mr. Hooker doth not here speake of reverence signified by the ceremonies, but of reverence to be signified towards them, as being things holy and vvorthy reverence. 4 What Mr. Hooker asscribed unto the crosse, is to be seen in M. Parker, p. 91.