A19178:64
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.
All that is left unto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods worship, is to order them in comely manner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question: so the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr understandeth it, as is to be seen in his commentary upon 1 Sam. 14. which judgement of his is cited and approved by ⟨p. 10⟩D. Whitaker de Pont p. 841. & 844. confirmed also by Junius against Bell. cont. 3. l. 4. c. 16. n. 86. 87. &c. 17. n. 9. 10. 12. 13. where he showeth that Christ is the only law-giver that appointeth things in his Church: and that he hath appointed all that are requisite: and that the Church maketh no laws (properly so called) to appoint any new things to be used, but only canons, orders, directions, ordering in seemly manner those things which Christ hath appointed: and that if she addeth any thing of her own, she doth decline. The reason is, because unto her is committed no authority of appointing new things, but a ministry to observe and do such things which Christ hath appointed. vide etiam Jun. de transl. imper. l. 1. c. 2. n. 26. 27. 31. This is also confirmed by sound reason, both in respect of the wisdom required in all law-makers, & perfectly found in Christ, and also in regard of the nature of such institutions. For the former reason teacheth, (as Aristotle showeth Rhet. 1. 3.) that all which possibly may, should be appointed in the law by the giver of it, and nothing left unto the ministerial judges, but that which must needs be left, as matters of fact, &c. Now in the worship of God, all but particular circumstances of order, may easily be appointed (as in very deed they were) by our law-giver Christ. As for the nature of such institutions, that doth also require so much: for whatsoever is above civility therein, if it be not a circumstance of order, it is worship, and therefore invented by man, unlawful will-worship. For whatsoever is used or acted by him that worshippeth God, in that act, it must needs be either grounded on civill humane considerations, and therefore civility: or an act and means of worship, and therefore worship: or the ordering and manner of disposing those acts & means, and therefore lawful, if lawfully and fitly applied: or else, at the least, idle and vain, and therefore to be avoided, according to that of Basil, [Greek or Hebrew]: A fifth cannot be given.
All that is left vnto the Churches liberty in things pertaining unto Gods worship, is to order them in comely maner. This is manifestly collected out of the place in question: so the Defendant seemeth to grant, so P. Martyr vnderstandeth it, as is to be seen in his commentarie upon