A19178:407
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. XI.
Against the Accusation of contempt, there was (as it seemeth) alleged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Non-conformitie is contempt; bowling, disusing of caps, and such habits prescribed should be contempt. Here the Defendant first bringeth divers interpretations out of the Casualists: and then taketh one for granted without rendering of any reason, that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of caps. But what if we take hold of another interpretation, esteeming the obligation by the intent of the Law-makers, which was against Popish Recusancy of our Communion-book, and not against refusal of some few ceremonies contained therein? I speak now of the Statute Law, not of lawless canons. Or what if we should stand upon that interpretation, which fetcheth the obligation from the weight of the matter imposed, ⟨p. 97⟩which in our ceremonies is very little? Some of these I am sure the Bishops must fly, if they vvill defend their disuse of the Crosier staff, which they are bound by our Laws as well to use, as the Ministers are surpluses.
AGainst the Accusation of contempt, there vvas (as it seemeth) alledged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Non-conformitie is contempt; bowling, disusing of capps, and such habites prescribed should be contempt. Heere the Defendant first bringeth divers interpretations out of the Casualists: and then taketh one for granted vvithout rendring of any reason, that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of cappes. But vvhat if vvee take hold of another interpretation, esteeming the obligation by the intent of the Law-makers, vvhich vvas against Popish Recusancie of our Communion-booke, and not against refusall of some few ceremonies contained therein? I speake now of the Statute Law, not of lawlesse canons. Or what if wee should stand upon that interpretation, vvhich fetcheth the obligation from the vveight of the matter imposed,