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 same kind of dealing which was noted in the former Section, we meet with also in this. For, whereas in the third confirmation of this argument, the Abridgement bringeth in Augustine, the Churches of France and Flanders, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Sadeel, Dan•us, Zepperus, Polanus, Jewel, Humphrey, &c. the Defendant calleth out Augustine alone by himself, and that with a double trick. For first, he citeth but one place of Augustine which was miscited or misprinted in the Abridgement, and leaveth out the other out of Epist. 5 rightly quoted in the Abridgement: Secondly, he maketh this place to conclude the main argument, whereas in the Abridgement it illustrateth only the third confirmation of that Argument. Concerning Augustine he answereth, 1 that in the first place cited there is no such thing, which I grant to be true, but if in stead of lib. 3. cap. 35 be set lib. 2 cap. 1 then something vvill be found. 2 That elsewhere (not mentioning the fifth Epist. which the Abridgement quoted) Augustine saith, that all holy signs are called Sacraments: but yet it doth not follow from hence that in his opinion all such signs are Sacraments, but only in word or phrase of speech. Neither was it brought in (as he might have marked) to prove any such thing, but only to show that such signs participate part of the nature of Sacraments: and this as that use of the word Sacrament doth confirm, so that which was derived from thence, and hath been in perpetual use, viz. that such ceremonies are called Sacramentalia, Sacramentals. But neither Augustine, nor other fathers do disallow such ceremonies (saith the Defendant) and this we do not deny: if by disallowing be meant constant rejecting of such things. Yet something is to be found in their general doctrine, from which we may soundly conclude against these inventions of man.