A19178:167
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. VI.
A Second objection from reason is here brought in• viz. that if ceremonies which God himself hath ordained to teach his Church by then moral signification, may not now be used: much less may any of those which man hath devised. But why doth the Def. pass by all the allegations which belong to this reason in the Abridgement, p. 33. 34. they cite to this purpose first the Council of Nice, Austin, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, Westphal•s, &c. And then after, Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, Virel, Bison, Reynolds, Willet, &c. And again, Calvin, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arcularius, our book of Homilies, Humphrey, Reynolds, Willet, &c. Are all these worth no answer? at least they show, that this is no new reason devised by the Nonconformists: but the common tenet of Protestants, and the ground whereby they confute the superstition of Papists.
A Second objection from reason is here brought in• viz. that if ceremonies which God himselfe hath ordained to teach his Church by then morall signification, may not now be used: much lesse may any of those which man hath devised. But vvhy doth the Def. passe by all the allegations vvhich belong to this reason in the Abridgement, p. 33. 34. they cite to this purpose first the Councel of Nice, Austine, Martyr, Bullinger, Lavater, Hospinian, Piscator, Cooper, Westphal•s, &c. And then after, Calvin, Bullinger, Hospinian, Arcularius, Virel, Bison, Reynolds, Willet, &c. And againe, Calvin, Bullinger, Chemnitius, Danaeus, Hospinian, Arcularius, our book of Homilies, Humphrey, Reynolds, Willet, &c. Are all these worth no answer? at least they shew, that this is no new reason divised by the Nonconformists: but the common tenent of Protestants, and the ground whereby they confute the superstition of Papists.