A19178:202
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. XIII. XIIII.
Here M. Cartwright is brought in as answering the former objections out of the Maccabees and Ester. But M. Cartwright p. 197, doth profess that there is as great difference betwixt these two, as is betwixt heaven and earth. And in his Confutation of the Rhemists, who urge the feast of Dedication as this Def. doth in Joh. 10 22, he answereth plainly, that this Feast was unduly instituted and ungroundedly by the Maccabees. Which also he proveth by such reasons as neither the Rhemists, nor this D•f. vvill ever answer. Yet let us hear, what he hath chosen out of M. Cartwright to answer. The Church may appoint holy days in certain cases: but it is one thing to restrain part of the day, and another to restrain the whole day. Where 1 M. Cartwright is wronged by the Def. for he confesseth (in the places quoted) expressly, that upon some extraordinary cases the Church may restrain a whole day, as at a solemn fast. 2 He should let us see what mystical signification is in the times appointed, as he striveth to do in other significant ceremonies: if he would have a more particular answer, otherwise they are alleged here to no purpose to prove significant ceremonies.
HEere M. Cartwright is brought in as answering the former objections out of the Machabees and Ester. But M. Cartwright p. 197, doth professe that there is as great difference betwixt these two, as is betwixt heaven and earth. And in his Confutation of the Rhemists, vvho urge the feast of Dedication as this Def. doth in Ioh. 10 22, he answereth plainely, that this Feast was unduely instituted and ungroundedly by the Machabees. Which also he proveth by such reasons as neither the Rhemists, nor this D•f. vvill ever answer. Yet let us heare, vvhat he hath chosen out of M. Cartwright to answer. The Church may appoint holy daies in certaine cases: but it is one thing to restraine part of the day, and another to restraine the whole day. Where 1 M. Cartwright is vvronged by the Def. for he confesseth (in the places quoted) expresly, that upon some extraordinary cases the Church may restraine a whole day, as at a solemne fast. 2 He should let us see vvhat mysticall signification is in the times appointed, as he striveth to doe in other significant ceremonies: if he vvould haue a more particular answer, otherwise they are alledged heere to no purpose to proue significant ceremonies.