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. XV. XVI.

IN the title of these two Sections, the Defendant promiseth an instance of a ceremonious instrument belonging unto the vvorship of God. But he bringeth none saue the Altar of the two tribes mentioned, Iosh. 22 vvhich hee cannot shew to haue been any instrument of Gods worship: so that he seemeth meere∣ly to haue forgotten his title. But for the thing it selfe M. Parker long since p. 1 c. 2 s. 33 hath given this answer. 1 that we may bet∣ter argue from the Altar of Damascus 2 King. 16 against the crosse, then they can from this Altar for it. 2 that this Altar of the two Tribes, vvas not in state or use religious as the Crosse is, vvhich he confirmeth by the confession of B. Babington on the second Com. and by the testimony of Lavater on Ios. hom. 61, 3 that in this our men say nothing vvhich the Papists alledge not for their superstitions, and the Lutherans for their images, as probably as they, Masi•••• and Chitreus upon this place. To the same purpose tendeth the answer vvhich the Def. hath set downe in the name of certaine Ministers. Let us here therefore his Reply. 1 He proveth the setting up of this Altar to haue beene humane, which

Page 47

no man that I know ever doubted of.

2 He would proue that it vvas appointed to Gods service. But alas he can bring no colour for that. It was a patterne (saith hee) of the Lords altar, which was a chief instrument of Gods worship: as our crosse is a resemblance of the crosse of Christ. Where 1 vvhy doth he compare the crosse vvheron Christ did suffer vvith the Lords Al∣tar? that crosse vvas no more holy, then the souldiers that nailed Christ to it, or then Iudas, that betrayed him into their hands: and therefore the signe of that crosse in respect of the resemblance vvhich it hath to that, is no more holy then the picture of Iudas. 2 Is every resemblance of a holy thing holy? then every Al∣house picture, vvhich resembleth any thing belonging to the Scripture & holy uses, is also holy. 3 If any of the Tyrians which vvrought under Salomon about the vvork of the Temple, should haue procured a modell of the Temple to be drawne, and carried it vvith him into his Country for to haue shewed it them for newes, had that model been religious or holy? the Def. thought he had to doe with such as vvould beleeue whatsoever he said.

3 He goeth about to proue, that it vvas mysticall signification eaching a spirituall dutie: because that one end of it vvas, in re∣spect of the present Gileadites, to teach that the Lord was God: and ano∣ther in respect of their posterity, to testifie their consent in the true Re∣ligion. But in all this faire shew, there is scarce one word true. For 1 it doth not appeare out of the text, that there vvas intended any use of it for the present age that then lived. The contrary appea∣reth plainly, vers. 27, 28 &c. The last verse cited to this purpose by the Defendant, must be interpreted as Iunus noteth out of the 30 verse. So that even by this it is manifest that a direct helpe unto devotion vvas not sought for in the erecting of this altar. For then not onely the two Tribes then living should haue had use of it, but most of the other Tribes should haue had reason to haue imitated their example, in setting up Altars of devotion even at every three-way-leet, as crosses are wont to stand. 2 in regard of posterity, the immediate end was to testifie, that though they were separated from the other Tribes by the river Iordan, yet they belonged to the same people, and had right to come unto the same place of vvorship. Now vvhat is this to a ceremonie which hath state and immediate use in the speciall solemne worship of God? the use of this testifying vvas to procure a consent and ap∣probation in future times among the other Tribes, that these two Tribes might be suffered to come to the Temple for to worship God there. So that neither the two Tribes, nor the other ten were stirred up by this Altar as by an instituted mystical ceremonie un∣to vvorship or devotion: for as for the two Tribes, they vvere

Page 52

onely to shew this monument unto those vvhich called their right into qustion. And the other were to consent and grant them their right. What is this to a garment of religion, or solemne religious vvorship?

Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem? Please contact us.