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. X.

HEre are many proofes conjoyned under the name of M. Hy. and others: the answers to which are just such as the cere∣monies be, meerly formall, without essence or substance of truth.

The first is, ceremonies are imposed to breed an opinion of ho∣linesse, as M. Hooker affirmeth, p. 61. and therefore are parts of Gods worship. The consequence is not denied by the Def. not yet the antecedent directly: so that the vvhole argument seemeth to be granted, onely the Def. sayth, that Mr. Hooker did not as∣scribe operative holinesse either by infusion or inhesion (which two

tearms are vnreasonably by him dis-ioyned) but onely significatiue, as his words import. To which I answer, 1. that as the nice distinctions vvhich are now used in the schooles of Iesuits, do not help, but that Popish superstition is as grosse as ever it was in practise: so this distinction of operatiue, infusion, inhaesion, significatiue, doth nothing helpe, but the common people in many places inclined to supersti∣tion, doe attribute as much holinesse to some of these ceremonies, as they doe to some holy ordinances of God. 2. The Patrones of our ceremonies, such as Mr. Hooker vvas, doe attribute that holi∣nesse to the ceremonies vvhich the Fathers did. Now that they as∣scribed operatiue holinesse unto some of them, Mr. Parker hath made, plaine in his booke of the Crosse, Part. 1. p. 77. 90 92. &c. 3. Mr. Hooker doth not here speake of reverence signified by the ceremonies, but of reverence to be signified towards them, as be∣ing things holy and vvorthy reverence. 4 What Mr. Hooker as∣scribed unto the crosse, is to be seen in M. Parker, p. 91.

The second reason is, because the ceremonies are the constitutions of a sacred Synod. The force of vvhich argument lyeth in this, that a holy Assembly of spirituall Lords and their assistants, if they bee truely holy and spirituall in their authoritie, and in the exercise of it, will appoynt no ceremonies but holy: and by the the observance of the said ceremonies, haue some spirituall honour redounding unto themselues, because the vertue vvhich is found in any effect, doth redound alwayes unto the praise of the cause. To this the Defendant giveth no reall answer: onely he doth af∣firme (contrary to the truth) that our Convocations may bee called sacred, as well as the Churches of Christ Saints by calling. Whereas beside other differences, Churches are of God: our convocations are of man. Churches are gathered for the holy Worship of God: convocations (as experience sheweth) for nothing lesse.

The third reason is, because the ceremonies are appropriated to the acts of Religion in Gods service. To this the Defendant answereth by denying the consequence, because the Pulpit cloth, the commu∣nion cup, and the place of meeting are so appropriated, and yet not essenti∣ally holy. But herein he sheweth, that he doth not understand well vvhat it is that he opposeth. For these things wherof he speaketh, are onely civill, being drawn from the ordinary civill customes of men, and are of the same use out of the service of God, that they are in it: and therefore howsoever some speciall individuals of this kinde may be appropriated unto religious acts, yet the kinde is not: neither haue those specialls any other signification in the service of God, then they haue in the service of men. These there∣fore are not such ceremonies as now are in question, nor so ap∣propriated to religion.

The fourth confirmation is from Math. 15. vvhere such cere∣monies are blamed of Christ by this reason. To this the De∣fendant answereth, that the act of washing is not there reproved, but the invention and opinion of an operatiue sanctitie and holinesse attribu∣ted unto it. But first, to vvhat purpose doth he deny, that the act of washing simply considered in it selfe, vvas unlawfull? was there ever any so durtie, that hee would affirme such a foule fancie? Secondly, the intention and opinion of holinesse is that vvhich now our ceremonies are charged with. Therfore in that there is no difference. Thirdly, that the Pharisies attributed any more operatiue holinesse unto their washing then many amongst us doe to the crosse, cannot bee shewed out of the Text. There is not one circumstance there vvhich may not fitly bee applied to our ceremonies. Fourthly, not onely Calvin upon the place, sayth that•• the inventing of such ceremonies vvas an idle vani∣tie, even before the high opinion of religion vvas added vnto it: but Bellarmine himselfe De effect sacr. lib. 2. cap. 32. confes∣seth that Christ reproved this ceremonie in the Pharisies, because it was vaine and unprofitable.