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 7, 2024.

Pages

SECT. XXVII.

THE next instance (like the former) is the kisse of peace. To vvhich our answer is, that it was a naturall indicant signe of peace and reconciliation. But the Def. borrowing light from some o∣ratoriall phrases of the Fathers, will proue the contrarie: though it be as manifest as any thing can be, both by Scripture, and also by other histories, that it was a civill naturall fashion used in those parts upon ciuill occasions as well as holy. Now what doth hee proue? First the institution, so farre as it was not commanded by Christ, was humane. This he affirmeth, but proveth not: and in his affir∣mation wavereth like a reed shaken with some winde. So farre it was from Christ; and so farre it was from man: and yet we heare not how farre from either. The plain truth is, it was of no institution

Page 48

at all: but of naturall inclination and civill custome, vsed long be∣fore the comming of Christ, as is to be seen every where in the old Testament, Gen. 29. 13. 1. Sam. 20. 41. &c. yet by direction or cu∣stome it received constant application unto some speciall acts. Se∣condly, he sayth, it was significant, that is, it had a naturall fitnesse to declare the inward affection of loue. What is this to a significati∣on imposed by man? it vvas so significant as shaking of hands: vvhich gesture also used to be joyned with it: Tunc ambo nexi ad invicem dextras damus in osculo pacis sacrae, &c. It did so signifie loue as the turning away of the face doth signifie alienation of minde. But (sayth he) it signified Christian loue. As if Christian loue had not in it the common nature of loue, and therefore cannot be signified partly by naturall signes common to loue. Cleanlinesse in the celebration of the sacraments, is the same that it is at another feast; though in regard of that application, it may be called Chri∣stian or holy cleanlinesse or decencie. Thirdly, he sayth, it was used in time of holy worship. So no doubt was giving of the upper place unto the Elders, &c. in token of reverence: and yet it was no reli∣gious instituted signe of mysticall signification: such reasons as these bewray more confidence then good consideration.

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