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…

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.

Here the Def. commeth upon them vvith open mouth, avouching peremptorily, that this is a false, presumptuous, irreligious, partiall, and pernicious pretense: and all this he will proue. If he can, vve shall the easilyer beare these great words. But why is it False? forsooth, because most of the Non-conformists haue once subscribed: the contradicting of which subscription is no lesse a matter of discredit then returning unto conformitie. What kind of proofe is this? because they were subject to another discredite, therefore this is no discredit. Beside it doth not appeare, nor is likely that most of these Ministers ⟨p. 81⟩did ever absolutely subscribe: neither is it likely: because it is well known how easie and how ordinary it vvas in Qu Elizabeths dayes, to enter into the Ministry without passing under that gallowes. If the most had, yet how would this proue it a falle pretence in the rest? If all had done so, yet this vvas no act of their Ministerie, nor known it may be to their people, and therfore the crossing of it did not so directly tend to the discrediting of their Ministery, as the crossing of their publick doctrine. Lastly, that which is done before a man be setled in the Ministery at one time, without any great deliberation, is not of such note as that which a man hath long professed & perswaded by reasons taken from the word of God. By all this it appeareth, that this first accusation of falsehood vvas rather an adventure as the Def. himselfe calleth it, the a grounded assertion.