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…

IN these passages two places of Scripture are objected, under the name of Mr. Hy: but I verily think Mr. Hy hath some wrong done him in the matter. Howsoever, I will not undertake to maintain that these places are fitly alleged and urged: though by proportion the force of the argument used in those places (who required these things at your hands) is strong against our ceremonies. We will not imitate D. Cary now Bishop of Exeter, that proved the Surplice by the armour of light, Rom. 13. 12. nor them that prove kneeling at the communion, and at the word Jesus, out of the bowing of the knee of all creatures, Phil. 2. 10. nor those that fetch the cross out of the letter Tau. Eze. 9. 4. Neither need the Defender please himself in this, that by some places of Scripture the ceremonies are not condemned: it is enough if they were condemned but by one only testimony of Scripture, or by one sound argument drawn out of Scripture, though no more could be brought. But what kind of dealing is this, for him that professeth a confutation principally of the Lincoln shire Ministers, to pass by divers texts of Scripture alleged by them, and to ⟨image 9⟩bring forth other of an uncertain author, never publicly propounded in any of our writings?

IN these passages two places of Scripture are obiected, vnder the name of Mr. Hy: but I verily thinke Mr. Hy hath some vvrong done him in the matter. Howsoever, I will not undertake to maintaine that these places are fitly alledged and urged: though by proportion the force of the argument used in those places (who required these things at your hands) is strong against our ceremonies. We will not imitate D. Cary now Bishop of Exeter, that proved the Surplice by the armour of light,