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…

10 The Council of Africa doth give a reason why they condemned certain feasts, because, they were drawn from the errors of the Gentiles. Herein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies.

10 The Councell of Affrick doth giue a reason why they condemned certaine feasts, because, they were drawn from the errours of the Gentiles. Heerein I am sure it maketh against our ceremonies.

11 To Tertullian de Coron. the Def. saith less then nothing. For he doth not speak of the same individual habit which was used to idolatry, as the Def. vainly pretendeth: nor of that kind which was only used in idolatrous worship. For in the same book c. 13, he saith this habit of a garland was used in most base places, as plays, stews, jakes &c.

11 To Tertullian de Coron. the Def. saith lesse then nothing. For he doth not speake of the same individuall habite which was used to idolatry, as the Def. vainely pretendeth: nor of that kind which was onely used in idolatrous worship. For in the same book c. 13, he saith this habit of a garland vvas used in most base places, as playes, stewes, jakes &c.

12 The like answer is given unto Tertullian de Orat. 1 in general it is said, that Tertullian doth not condemn these ceremonies merely for resemblance with idolaters: but for opinion of efficacy and necessity: whereas the contrary is plain in Tertullian, for he saith expressly, Propterea in nobis reprehendi meretur, quod apud idola celebratur. Therefore it is to be blamed in us, because it is used before Idols: And B. Jewel Def. Apol. with many other of our best Writers against the Papists do urge these testimonies of Tertullian merely in regard of resemblance. 2 In washing (saith the Def.) some did then hold an opinion of efficacy and necessity. If they did, that is nothing to the purpose; for they might be condemned in that behalf, and yet merely also for resemblance with idolaters. But no such thing appeareth in Tertullian, he telleth us plainly, that the washing before prayer was a significant sign in remembrance of Christs delivering unto the Jews by Pilate, when he had washed. Cum scrupulose percontarer, & rationem requirerem, compei commemorationem esse in domini deditionem, c. 11, so that I do not see but that this washing was every way like unto our sign of the cross in regard of the original signification and use of it. 3 In the ceremony of dossing cloaks before prayer, there was an opinion of necessity, because Tertullian saith, si sic oportet, if this ought to be done. As if sic oportet, ought to be done, ought always to be expounded of an absolute necessity. Do not our Prelates now say, sic oportet, we ought to use the ceremonies, and yet disclaim this opinion of necessity? Tertullian only condemneth, Vacua observatio, vanitas, quae sine ullius dominici out apostolici praecepti authoritate fit, atque adeo superstitioni deputanda All these agree to our ceremonies