A19178:232
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. XXX.
OF our own Writers the Def. here opposeth unto us, Calvin Junius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainly manifested before, that they all with one consent condemn humane symbolical ceremonies in Gods worship: and that upon good grounds out of Gods word. Now therefore if any thing elsewhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therein, or else they showed themselves to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little variety to be found in some of our divines concerning the point of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it less offensive. All our Divines, when they look into the clear crystal of the scripture, condemn plainly all devices of man in Gods worship, whatsoever: but again, some of them when they fix their eyes on the false gloss of ancient times, and consider withal how hardly men are drawn from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may do by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seem sometime to waver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in general, because it may have good use in some particular places which this Def. threat•eth hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easy.
OF our own Writers the Def. heere opposeth unto us, Calvin Iunius, Chemnitius and Zepperus. Now for these, it hath been plainely manifested before, that they all vvith one consent condemne humane symbolicall ceremonies in Gods worship: and that upon good grounds out of Gods word. Now therefore if any thing elswhere hath fallen from any of them by occasion, sounding to the contrary, then we may well think that either their meaning is mistaken therin, or else they shewed themselues to be men: and indeed (to say the truth) there is a little varietie to bee found in some of our divines concerning the poynt of ceremonies. But the cause thereof being marked, will make it lesse offensiue. All our Divines, when they look into the clear chrystall of the scripture, condemne plainly all devices of man in Gods worship, whatsoeever: but againe, some of them when they fixe their eyes on the false glosse of ancient times, and consider withall how hardly men are drawen from their accustomed vanities, and what good some men may doe by applying themselves somewhat to the times, then receiving another kind of impression, they seeme sometime to vvaver in their words. This observation I thought fit to set down in generall, because it may haue good use in some particular places which this Def. threateth hereafter to object. But as for the places here quoted, the answer is easie.