A19178:250
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. I.
This argument in the Abridgement, p. 17. standeth thus: It is contrary to Gods word to use (much more to command the use of) such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man hath devised, if they be notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry or superstition by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no necessary use in the Church. But our ceremonies are such: Ergo.
THis argument in the Abridgement, p. 17. standeth thus: It is contrary to Gods word to use (much more to command the use of) such ceremonies in the worship of God, as man hath devised, if they be notoriously knowen to have been of old, and still to be abused unto idolatry or superstition by the Papists, specially if the same be now of no necessarie use in the Church. But our ceremonies are such: Ergo.
The Defendants answer is very brief: he dares not absolutely deny either part of the argument. He could not find a fit distinction whereupon to ground a conditional denial with reason: he contents himself therefore to make a show of distinguishing after an unreasonable manner. For he doth not distinguish of any one term found in the argument: nor maketh the parts of his supposed distinction such as will bear any Logical sense. If (saith he) you require such ceremonies to be abolished, then we deny your Major: but if you understand indifferent things, or mean an absolute, not a convenient necessity, we deny your Assumption. If this and but if that, this form of speech, as indeed, every distinction, implieth some dissension and segregation in the parts distinguished. But here is no show of any such thing, betwixt abolishing and indifferency, or absolute necessity. I know not what to make of such a confused distinction. It is as if one should say, If you require an establishing of the ceremonies, I deny one thing; but if you understand convenient ceremonies, I deny another thing. Such kind of speaking is nothing else but non sence, or as some use to call it, a very bull. Let this general answer therefore pass: though he saith, that in it we may see our marks, and take our aim.