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.

About this Item

Title: 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.
Author: Ames, William, 1576-1633.
Publication: [Amsterdam] :: Printed [by Giles Thorp],; in yeare 1622.
Rights/Permissions: To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms: Morton, Thomas, 1564-1659. -- Defence of the innocencie of the three ceremonies of the Church of England.; Church of England -- Customs and practices -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A19178.0001.001
Cite this Item: "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." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A19178.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 15, 2024.

Pages

SECT. XXI.

THis sect. is of al other most ridiculous. For, first it supposeth e∣very circūstance to be of the like nature with the ceremonies in controversie. Secondly, it supposeth all circumstances to be of institution. Thirdly, it supposeth contrary circumstances ceremoniously to be practised, by the same men as of institution: for otherwise the cavillation hath no shew. Now all these are conceited dreames. But vvhat if vve should argue thus? You say these ceremonies are divine: and yet dare not deny but the re∣jecting of them in other Churches is divine. You retaine these ceremonies as divine, and yet haue rejected other ceremonies of like nature as divine as these. What divinitie is in such courses?