A19178:31
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. III.
BUT that which before the Defendant durst not deny, now he cometh to oppose in the proofs of it: Which is a strange course, in him especially that professeth a distinct logical proceeding.
BVT that which before the Defendant durst not denie, now he commeth to oppose in the proofes of it: Which is a strange course, in him especially that professeth a distinct logicall proceeding.
In the propounding of our confirmation, I note two things once here in the beginning for all following occasions to be marked, 1 this Defendant doth us wrong in distributing our confirmations into those which are taken from Scriptures, and those that are from the Fathers, and those that are from Protestant Divines: as if these were in our estimation of the same kind. Whereas we profess that we ascribe no force unto any testimony of man, as if it were a proof, but only bring such allegations in as illustrations in regard of our adversaries perverse prejudice. 2 He wrongeth us likewise in that difference which he insinuateth betwixt the Fathers and our Divines, calling their testimonies Judgements, and the other only Confessions: we acknowledge no such imparity. If this were nothing but idle rhetoric in the Defendant, it may be passed by.
In the propounding of our confirmation, I note two things once here in the beginning for all following occasions to be marked, 1 this Defendant doth us wrong in distributing our confirmations into those vvhich are taken from Scriptures, and those that are from the Fathers, and those that are from Protestant Divines: as if these were in our estimation of the same kinde. Wheras we professe that vvee ascribe no force unto any testimony of man, as if it vvere a proofe, but onely bring such allegations in as illustrations in regard of our adversaries perverse prejudice. 2 He vvrongeth us likewise in that difference vvhich he insinuateth betwixt the Fathers and our Divines, calling their testimonies Iudgements, and the other onely Confessions: we acknowledge no such imparitie. If this vvere nothing but idle rhetorick in the Defendant, it may be passed by.