A19178:350
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…
A reply to Dr. Mortons general Defence of three nocent [sic] ceremonies viz. the surplice, cross in baptism, and kneeling at the receiving of the sacramental elements of bread and wine.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.
Amsterdam: printed by Giles Thorp, 1622
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
SECT. XIIII.
A Fifth instance, or rather an enlargement of the former is, in respect of the Ministers who have formerly refused the ceremonies, for whereas the Minister is bound to lead his people forward unto perfection; and to provide by all good means, that his ministry be not despised: by this means be shall draw them back again unto the liking of superstition; or at least not to dislike it so much as they have done: and give them evident occasion to blame his Ministry, and to call in question the truth of all his doctrine.
A Fift instance, or rather an inlargement of the former is, in respect of the Ministers who haue formerly refused the ceremonies, for whereas the Minister is bound to lead his people forward unto perfection; and to provide by all good meanes, that his ministery be not despised: by this meanes be shall draw them back again unto the liking of superstition; or at least not to dislike it so much as they haue done: and giue them evident occasion to blame his Ministery, and to call in question the truth of all his doctrine.
Here the Def. cometh upon them with open mouth, avouching peremptorily, that this is a false, presumptuous, irreligious, partial, and pernicious pretence: and all this he will prove. If he can, we shall the easilyer bear these great words. But why is it False? forsooth, because most of the Non-conformists have once subscribed: the contradicting of which subscription is no less a matter of discredit then returning unto conformity. What kind of proof is this? because they were subject to another discredit, therefore this is no discredit. Beside it doth not appear, nor is likely that most of these Ministers