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. XI.

AGainst the Accusation of contempt, there vvas (as it see∣meth) alledged by M. Nic. that by the same reason that Non-conformitie is contempt; bowling, disusing of capps, and such habites prescribed should be contempt. Heere the De∣fendant first bringeth divers interpretations out of the Casua∣lists: and then taketh one for granted vvithout rendring of any reason, that he may by it excuse bowling and disuse of cappes. But vvhat if vvee take hold of another interpretation, estee∣ming the obligation by the intent of the Law-makers, vvhich vvas against Popish Recusancie of our Communion-booke, and not against refusall of some few ceremonies contained therein? I speake now of the Statute Law, not of lawlesse canons. Or what if wee should stand upon that interpretation, vvhich fetch∣eth the obligation from the vveight of the matter imposed,

vvhich in our ceremonies is very little? Some of these I am sure the Bishops must flye, if they vvill defend their disuse of the Crosier staffe, vvhich they are bound by our Lawes as vvell to use, as the Ministers are surplusses.

But all this is needlesse, because there can be no contempt in a conscionable forbearance of unlawfull impositions; such as the ceremonies are sufficienaly proved to be.