A19178:91
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. XXII.
After all this ado about the proposition of the first argument, now we are told of an assumption out of the Abridgement, and M. Hy. viz. that these Ceremonies have no warrant from the word of God. For M. Hy. I cannot say much: But I am sure the Authors of the Abridgement have great wrong done them. Whosoever vvill turn to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall presently see that the words which our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration belonging to this Proposition, All ceremonies that swerve from the rules given in the word for the Churches direction in matters of ceremony, are unlawful. The assumption of which is, but the ceremonies in question swerve from those Rules. Now all the chief pith both of proposition and assumption is by the Def. omitted: a by thing is put in place of the proposition, a new assumption is formed: and yet, all fathered upon the Abridgement. But to pass by that, the assumption here set down is defensable enough.
AFter al this adoe about the proposition of the first argument, now vve are told of an assumption out of the Abridgment, and M. Hy. viz. that these Ceremonies haue no warrant from the word of God. For M. Hy. I cannot say much: But I am sure the Authors of the Abridgement haue great vvrong done them. Whosoever vvill turne to the place quoted by the Def. in the Abridgement, shall presently see that the words vvhich our Def. hath turned into a Proposition, are there but part of an illustration belonging to this Proposition, All ceremonies that swerue from the rules given in the word for the Churches direction in matters of ceremonie, are unlawfull. The assumption of vvhich is, but the ceremonies in question swerue from those Rules. Now all the chiefe pith both of proposition and assumption is by the Def. omitted: a by thing is put in place of the proposition, a new assumption is formed: and yet, all fatherd upon the Abridgment. But to passe by that, the assumption here set down is defensable enough.