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.

SECT. VII.

HEre is promised a confutation of the proposition, viz. of this assertion, all will-worship whatsoever is to be condemned, and to that purpose he bringeth forth againe his Magna Charta, Let all things be done in order. But I think that plea is sufficiently confu∣ted. In the next place he produceth or rather as the fellow sayd once, seduceth 2 vvitnesses, Vrsine and Zanchie. But beleeue me, when I looked vpon the places vvhich he alledgeth out of them, I could not but lift up my heart unto God, and say, O Lord, how can such conceited confidence fasten on a man that regardeth ei∣ther conscience or credit? How dare mortall men upon such grounds as these, obtrude the conception of their braines upon thy▪ Churches? Vrsine (saith the Def.) hath catechised them wel. True: but our proud Prelats for the most part, do scorne not onely that, but all other catechismes, except for fashion sake, that vvhich be∣ginneth with What is your name? and though I doe not account this Def. in that number, yet I may safely say, that hee never vvell considered vvhom or vvhat he cited out of Vrsine. All that he brin∣geth, is out of the commentary on q. 96. ob. 3. & 5. as it is set downe by Pareus. Now before obiections be brought, it is fit and

usuall that the Thesis or sentence be set down against vvhich those objections fight; and no vvise man will take up an answer made to an obiection, before hee considereth the assertion against vvhich that objection is made. See then vvhat the assertion of Vrsine is: Ipsae ceremoniae (Ecclesiasticae sc. quae ab hominibus praecipiuntur) non modo cultus Dei non sunt: sedetiam conscientias non obligant, &c. the very same thing vvhich we here maintaine, viz. that no lawfull ceremonies appointed by man, are the worship of God. Except therefore Ecclesiasticall ceremonies be therefore the vvorship of God, because they be not the worship of God, the Def. had no rea∣son to alledge this place of Vrsin in this question: and so iust it is in the vvords here alledged out of the answer to the third objection, those things which serve accidentally to the glory of God, are not the worship of God. And to the 4. obj. By these examples wil-worship is not established. And to the 5. obj. Indifferent things (being done of faith) please God otherwise then the worship of God properly so called. Is it possi∣ble that any thing should be concluded from hence for vvill-wor¦ship? Surely no: and therfore the Def. himselfe maketh his con∣clusion out of these premises, that Divine worship properly so called is that which is ordained of God. Was there any of us that ever doub∣ted of this? is it not the proposition vvhich this Def. undertook to confute. But in a large sence (sayth he) humane ceremonies may bee held to he a part of divine worship. This is that which we haue heard averred before in this section. I had thought we should haue seene it proved. But alas it could be no more then affirmed, and that un∣der the shadow of a sentence whereby it is flatly condemned. Zan∣chie (sayth he) distinguisheth the substance of worship from those things which are annexed to worship. Why so doe all the Non-conformists. What then? are ceremonies worship in a large sence, because they are annexed to worship? then the signe of the crosse is a sacrament because it is annexed to a sacrament.

I wonder (sayth the Def.) how such poynts should seeme to be so raw to some of the Non-conformists. What poynts? those assertions which Vrsine and Zanchy expresse? they seeme to all of us well di∣gested axiomes of Divinitie: but the consequence vvhich the Def. would draw from hence, is evidently so raw, that none but a ve∣ry Ostridge can concoct it.