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. XXVIII.
THE last reason is, because Poperie and Popish rites are not to be
esteemed of equall abomination with Paganisme and Paganish rites.
Suppose this vvere true every way (as it is not) yet in this they
may ••agrree, that both alike are to bee detested and abando∣ned.
Nay, a lesser superstition the authors and countenances wher∣of
are neere at hand, doth call for more hastie removall, then a
greater, whose authours and users are vnknown. Howsoever,
vvhen the scriptures bid us flie from Idolatry, and that also parti∣cularly,
from Popish Idolatries without any distinction, as from
Divells, Ap. 18. a few smoothing vvords cannot satisfie our con∣sciences
in this, but, that wee are as well and as farre to flie from
descriptionPage 73
Popish Idolatry, as from Paganish. But if the Defendant vvould
haue throughly discussed this question, vvhy did hee not answer
that vvhich Mr. Parker hath to this purpose? p. 1. c. 1. S. 25. or that
vvhich is alledged in the Abridgement, p. 24.
email
Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem?
Please contact us.