His third reason is, because refusal of conformity in case of deprivation, tendeth to condemn in a manner all true Churches which have taught and practised otherwise. He meaneth by condemning, accusing of error. Now M. Sprint himself doth thus condemn all or the most of the Churches which he allegeth to have practised such ceremonies. For in confessing our ceremonies to be inconvenient, scandalous, evil, such as the urging of them cannot be justified, and yet affirming that almost all Churches have appointed and used such, even out of the case of deprivation or such like necessity, doth he not plainly accuse all those Churches of error? These things considered, I thought is needless to spend much time in examining M. Sprints book any further. But according to your desire, I will show you mine opinion in brief concerning the chief passages which are in Thomas Chesters, or as he was wont to be called, Doctor Mortons Defence of three ceremonies, commonly used in our Churches, which I do the more willingly undertake, because divers things are therein handled of singular use in divinity, whereof I profess my self a Student, though in the ministry I cannot find a settled station. But before I come to the Defence it self, first, I would fain understand the reason why three Ceremonies are only defended, seeing there be many threes of those things which stay many godly men from subscription and conformity, as is to be seen even in that abridgement which this Defender doth chiefly oppose? Is it because our best Prelates have only a care to persuade if it may be, those that are in the ministry, to that conformity which is most of all noted, not regarding in the mean time, what becometh of so many godly learned young men, who not only for these, but for divers other corruptions also, are forced to turn away from the ministry, whereunto their education, gifts and hearts did carry them, while many lewd fellows, the chief spots and blots of our congregations, do possess their places.
His third reason is, because refusall of conformitie in case of deprivation, tendeth to condemne in a manner all true Churches which haue taught and practised otherwise. Hee meaneth by condemning, accusing of error. Now M. Sprint himselfe doth thus condemne all or the most of the Churches which he alledgeth to haue practised such ceremonies. For in confessing our ceremonies to be inconvenient, scandalous, evill, such as the urging of them cannot be justified, and yet affirming that almost all Churches haue appointed and used such, even out of the case of deprivation or such like necessitie, doth he not plainly accuse all those Churches of error? These things considered, I thought is needless to spend much time in examining M. Sprints booke any further. But according to your desire, I will shew you mine opinion in briefe concerning the chiefe passages which are in Thomas Chesters, or as he was wont to be called, Doctor Mortons Defence of three ceremonies, commonly used in our Churches, which I doe the more willingly vndertake, because divers things are therin handled of singular vse in divinitie, whereof I profess my selfe a Student, though in the ministerie I cannot find a setled station. But before I come to the Defence it selfe, first, I would faine vnderstand the reason why three Ceremonies are onely defended, seeing there be many threes of those things which stay many godly men from subscription and conformitie, as is to be seen even in that abridgement which this Defender doth chiefly oppose? Is it because our best Prelats haue onely a care to perswade if it may be, those that are in the ministery, to that conformity which is most of all noted, not regarding in the meane time, what becommeth of so many godly learned yong men, who not onely for these, but for divers other corruptions also, are forced to turne away from the ministerie, whereunto their education, gifts and hearts did carry them, while many lewd fellowes, the chiefe spots and blots of our congregations, doe possess their places.
