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…

CHAP. II.

SECT. I.

THIS second Argument is taken from the kind, unto which such ceremonies as ours are, do in their nature belong, viz. that they are parts of divine worship, and therefore (being mans inventions) unlawful. Here the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it, distinguishing betwixt proper or essential parts of Gods worship, and improper or accidental. But first he should have done well to have considered the nature and measure of the thing which he would cleave, by the light of a definition. For otherwise he may spend his wedge, his beetle, and all his labour in vain.

THIS second Argument is taken from the kind, unto vvhich such ceremonies as ours are, doe in their nature belong, viz. that they are parts of divine worship, and therefore (being mans inventions) unlawfull. Heere the Def. comes out with a wedge as he calleth it, distinguishing betwixt proper or essentiall parts of Gods worship, and improper or accidentall. But first he should haue done vvell to haue considered the nature and measure of the thing which he vvould cleaue, by the light of a definition. For otherwise he may spend his wedge, his beetle, and all his labour in vaine.

And so indeed he hath, as may appear by his explication of this distinction. By proper and essential parts (saith he) we understand such ceremonies, which are so necessarily required to Gods service, as that the contrary thereof must needs displease him. By accidental parts (or appurtenances) such as serve only as accessory complements, ordained for the more convenient discharge of the necessary worship of God, i. e. for decorum and edification. For 1 if all those ceremonies be essential parts of Gods worship, which are such as the contrarity of them must needs displease God, then certainly all ceremonies which serve for decorum and edification must needs be essential parts of Gods worship: because the contrary of decorum and edification must needs displease God in his worship. 2 What kind of wedging is this, so to distinguish the parts of Gods worship, as that the accidental only, and not the essential shall serve for edification? 3 What cleaving or dissolving is this of the parts of worship, where the accidental parts are rather said to be appurtenances then parts, and yet granted to be parts? 4 What worship of God