A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…A reply to Dr. Mortons generall Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the…

THE PREFACE.

SIR,

Howsoever there be many unknown motives which lead men in these days unto conformity, yet those which are openly professed, may be referred either unto M. Sprints way, who confesseth the ceremonies to be imposed contrary unto the rules of Gods word, and yet contendeth that they are to be used in case of deprivation: Or else to D. Mortons way, who avoucheth the said ceremonies to be agreeable unto the rules of Gods word, and therefore such as ought to be observed simply. Now he that considereth well of the ma•ter, shall find that there is no ground for the conscience to rest on in either of these ways. As for M. Sprint, (to speak nothing of his mis-alleging very many authors) he hath but three main arguments: and to all three he hath given sufficient answer himself. His first argument is taken from the doctrine and practise of the Apostles about the Jewish ceremonies. Now all the force of this reason doth depend upon that parity or equality which is supposed to be betwixt our ceremonies and the Jewish, our ministers warrant and the Apostles: so that if this parity faileth, the whole argument falleth. Yet M. Sprint himself confesseth, pag. 250. 256. that those Jewish ceremonies were not every way so evil as ours are: neither doth or dare he say, that ministers now have such particular warrant for conformity, as the Apostles had for applying themselves a little while unto some of the Jewish ceremonies.

HOwsoever ther be many vnknown motiues which lead men in these dayes unto conformitie, yet those which are openly professed, may be referred either vnto M. Sprints way, who confesseth the ceremonies to be imposed contrary unto the rules of Gods word, and yet contendeth that they are to be used in case of deprivation: Or else to D. Mortons way, who avoucheth the sayd cermonies to be agreeable unto the rules of Gods word, and therfore sch as ought to be observed simply. Now he that considereth wel of the mater, shall find that there is no ground for the conscience to rest on in either of these wayes. As for M. Sprint, (to speak nothing of his mis-alledging very many authors) he hath but three main arguments: and to all three he hath given sufficient answer himselfe. His first argument is taken from the doctrine and practise of the Apostles about the Iewish ceremonies. Now all the force of this reason doth depend upon that paritie or equalitie which is supposed to be betwixt our ceremonies and the Iewish, our ministers warrant and the Apostles: so that if this paritie faileth, the whole argument falleth. Yet M. Sprint himselfe confesseth, pag. 250. 256. that those Iewish ceremonies were not every way so evill as ours are: neither doth or dare he say, that ministers now haue such particular warrant for conformitie, as the Apostles had for applying themselves a little while unto some of the Iewish ceremonies.