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…

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 ⟨p. 81⟩did ever absolutely subscribe: neither is it likely: because it is well known how easy and how ordinary it was in Qu Elizabeths days, to enter into the Ministry without passing under that gallows. If the most had, yet how would this prove it a fall pretence in the rest? If all had done so, yet this was no act of their Ministry, nor known it may be to their people, and therefore the crossing of it did not so directly tend to the discrediting of their Ministry, as the crossing of their public doctrine. Lastly, that which is done before a man be settled in the Ministry at one time, without any great deliberation, is not of such note as that which a man hath long professed & persuaded by reasons taken from the word of God. By all this it appeareth, that this first accusation of falsehood was rather an adventure as the Def. himself calleth it, the a grounded assertion.